To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Puzzling questions
Pages: 1, 2, 3

Good Elf
Hi All,

I started to ask this "elsewhere"... I still think this is a good question...

QUOTE
I also have a question that might be interesting... where does that electric field in an electromagnetic wave "come from"? Once you have that you can "construct" particles but as a fundamental concept... where is it coming from? I assume that it is a non-linear effect in "Uberspace"... but what? It must be related to the fluctuating energy somehow. Has anyone got a classical idea about the origin of this precisely and without much ambiguity.  Please do not use charges to explain it. Remember "energy" does not carry charge, yet "uncharged" photons propagating exhibit this plus ... minus 'wave" phenomenon. Note also you need to simultaneously explain what is magnetism somehow too.

The other aspect of this question you may think about is what about the virtual photon? What about that strong unseen interaction (think of the forces in a bar magnet)... What do you think causes it and where is it "really" coming from? Yeah I know about "moving electrons" but what about that "force"?

What I would like is "apeman" to come up with a paper on this...

The deformation of "Uberspace" in higher dimensions must result in this "unbalanced" property we see as electric charge. There is that scalar and vector potential that is responsible for the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. This seems to be the proto-property that electromagnetism is "seeping out of". It is though a "neutral" property is "displaced" and their centers are no longer coincident and what you get is this "stress" in the "ether". Please do not take that word literally. There could be some zero point energy pervading all space and all dimensions. Maybe this is an imbalance between dimensions when you place them under stress. You can create matter and anti-matter from just this kind of energy.

For instance an electron positron pair from two very energetic photons with the right geometry. Before you have that matter and anti-matter there must be some "proto-stuff" from which energy is able to work on to raise that dynamic charge. It is indeed similar to plucking a string.... isn't it? It is possible that something can be moved between dimensions and then this tension is there to "push it back" from where it has come from. If you push hard enough you "create" stuff from just energy. For instance the bending of these dimensions usually produces nothing other than an "elastic" recoil (EM waves but not spawned from the source - evanescent). If the process is intense enough such as if the energy density compared with the wavelength of this "disturbance" exceeds h times the frequency (E=hf) then a particle (a photon) will form. More energy, higher density it spawns particles and antiparticles. The constant "h" is an impulse and the photon is a multiple of that frequency (linear function). The "bubble" packet formed by this process works similar to blowing bubbles using a small loop and a soap solution. You also need someone to blow. Fast and hard for small bubbles and loops, long and slow for big bubbles and loops. The small bubbles have higher surface tensions than the big bubbles so the small bubbles could store more energy (short wavelength - high frequency).

The energy of blowing produces bubbles of a fixed size from a "loop" of fixed dimensions. Blowing needs to exceed a critical "velocity" otherwise no bubbles actually are spawned. Maybe higher dimensional space is like that loop and the energy that deforms it 'blows bubbles" in hyperspace. A minimum of energy will be necessary to blow the first bubble and all successive bubbles need the same tension to create new "quanta". Bigger loops with soap bubbles need to be inflated more to produce a big bubble. The bigger the size of the bubble... you need to "blow" for a longer period to inflate them before they finally pinch off, but the energy is actually lower. Little loops have more tension in their bubbles. There are two competing ideas... the diameter of the bubble... small bubbles have high surface tension but "something" is also stored in the volume of the surface area of the bubble... a competing concept (small bubbles store less surface and big bubbles will have larger surfaces). Is this the simultaneous "electric" and "magnetic" concept? The size of the bubble is a function of the wavelength (size) of the "bubble". If it has a near infinite wavelength it would have a very large surface area but very little curvature of the surface. Consider "two bubbles" touching each other one inflating and the other contracting... exchanging energy dynamically. Bubbles that are unable to make it to a critical size to "pinch off" as a free standing bubble just "stretch" the "membrane" back and forth endlessly without the capacity to breach the work function of the "spawning" surface (loop).

Here we have principles of a quantum, the energy density which inflates the bubble and higher dimensions. The equation E=hf is a "stiffness" factor of dimensions. The size of the photon is critically dependent on the ability of the dimensionally curved bubble to form. Too big... it will not "spawn" the bubble, too small it requires too great an energy density to blow it up. Spaces are "elastic" and it is a fixed "elastic membrane". Remember those small balloons that, as a child, you had to get your dad to blow up for you even though they were small? ... he he he! The bigger balloons you could handle. Paradoxical eh!

Back to the first question... what about the charges? Is this something to do with trans-dimensional energy bouncing back and forth? Shuffling the energy from one brane to the other? Maybe this process actually "creates" the dimensions as it goes and this is an actual creation event of space itself. After all before you create a "brane" there was none so this higher dimensional object is forced to be "inflated" from the vacuum. Something we take for granted in our Universe is the space itself. This "space" is not in 3D + T so it does not affect our space but it does affect the greater manifold. The charges could be a reflection of "stuff" in our dimensions of 3D + T being pushed into new "fresh" hyper-dimensions at right angles to our 3D + T dimensions. The "complex" or "imaginary" (i,j,k) higher spaces do not look like "distances" but like "charges" seen from 3D + T, especially before they pinch off from our Universe.

What do people think of this concept? I would like others to comment please.

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


What are the differences in "bubbles" and spherical waves?


I like the analogy; 2 things come to mind.

Their would be a "tail" on the trailing edge from the "pinch off". This could add a dualistic nature to the bubble, giving the front and back different characteristics.
(incl. spin, polarity)

Do you suppose a "refraction index" could be imposed, except it would be a density or pressure parameter that would size-down the bubble? This would be equivalent to a lengthening of wavelength (in 1 dimension) from where it should be by the diameter of the wand, creating elongated bubbles with an equal amount of energy as their spherical counterparts (index=1).

???


T.Roc
Good Elf
Hi Troc,

I really appreciate your input. Take nothing I say hare as gospel and please put in your five cents worth. This is a very interesting point to me. In the "atomic" case a single photon could be emitted or absorbed into a system. In the case of a "radio transmitter" photons are emitted in vast quantities into the "Uberspace" of the extra six dimensions where the dimensions are more flexible. As I have said in other places the 3D + T of our prosaic Spacetime is not flexible to any great extent.

There are two logical cases... the creation of photons with zero rest mass and the pair production of particles with mass such as an electron-positron. Photons which are bosons obey Bose-Einstein statistics and can occupy the same point in space. Many can occupy that one point (billions of you like). The photons are always traveling at the speed of light if they are emitted. These are different types of branes to those created for an electron positron which could potentially have almost zero kinetic energy and do not "propagate" away after the pair creation event.

Did you catch the article on the topological photon that "simulates" an electron. Apeman had this post which really caught my attention...
Electron is close-looped photon?, Any further work in semi-classical?
Here is the actual paper...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
Look at this reference as well...
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"?
Good Elf on gravity
So this discussion should be in the light of that material.

The "brane" for a single photon is not "obvious". The truncated wave train produces the "ensemble" of frequencies of the quanta. What truncates the wave train? What occupies the function of the loop? I think it has to be the speed of light and the way the "pulse" is emitted from the "antenna" source. Look into the classical notion of field lines to illustrate what is happening to the "donuts" (tori) of electric field lines. Though each individual one of these quanta have the form of a "packet" they "interpenetrate" and self interfere with themselves. These lines are the "sum" of usually millions of them propagating as a "swarm". The summation of billions of them is what you see below. Individually they are spherical but as a swarm they assume this toroidal symmetry. The magnetic fields are circular annuli "fiber bundles". Here is an animation of a cross section through a dipole radiator showing the "closed" electric field lines radiating away at the speed of light (the animation is not exactly one cycle). This image shows only the electric field. The magnetic field lines are perpendicular and loop through the system as concentric circles (usually within the one packet). With many packets crowded together they tend to join up and circulate as if they were much bigger loops that encircle the antenna. This is that effect of "lines of force" you get with iron filings in the "static" case. Notice how the packets (and the swarm) rapidly spread with distance as curved "pancakes". The spread of all is almost the spread of a single one. The thickness remains the same at 1/2 a wavelength or a wavelength for a full cycle.
User posted image
These tori are being emitted at the speed of light. The charge displacement (positive and negative charge centers produce a vector of AC potential in the middle with the axis vertical. The convention you are usually used to is the magnitude of the intensity of the potential and this would be the AC wave progressing outwards with maxima and minima of electric potential coinciding with the center of these circular "spawned" loops. When the "charge centers" cross inside the antenna (field drops to zero and crosses the horizontal axis) and the field is "reversed" the loop is detached (snaps closed ) from the "antenna". A single packet is the size of a wavelength and in a short distance spreads to fill a large part of the space it is passing into. This wavefront it presents is proportional to ruser posted image. The particle interaction is the result of the fact that some compatible structure must absorb it. Usually it is the "tuned cavity" of the atom and the empty "shell".

The alternative picture of the wave should be seen as a one dimensional plot of the "brane" you are "almost" seeing here. The size of the "bubble" is defined by the speed of light and the wavelength of the antenna. If the loops extend one bubble diameter in the forward direction (at the speed of light) then the packet must be truncated to form even bubbles. Bubbles will always minimize the surface area to form "perfect" spherical structures no matter what. These will always be E= hf in size .Even with soap bubbles of "odd" shape they will "assume" an initial spherical shape, these will as well. These "branes" are traveling (propagating) at the speed of light in the forward direction and "covering" a huge aerial patch transverse to the direction of propagation. Though the "thickness" (wavelength) of the "patch" gets no thinner it is continually spreading over vast areas. The shape of the photon is more like a pancake than a ball when it is far from the source. There are huge numbers of them and they interpenetrate each other without any effect owing to the Bose-Einstein Statistics they obey. This is why one photon or a billion photons will build up an interference pattern with time. I will include another link to a applet that can be moved to see the "voltage" spatially which is the same one dimensional picture you are used to. This includes the magnetic field as the field at right angles to the electric field. You need to use your imagination to think of these branes in the "Uberspace" rather than the "projection" into 3D + T you are seeing here.
3D Wave Physlet
Note that this applet allows you to look at a few configurations and to change it's orientation in 3D space using the mouse. Notice the curvature of the packet front to back and the continuous "spreading" of the packet into a "pancake". This is not just one quantum but very many of then... they all exhibit the same shape and occupy the same general volume. It is "touching all that space and reacting to it as a barrier and partially tunneling partially being absorbed. Luckily some will make it to the screen.

In the case of particle creation, the branes are a different type.... They are not always going anywhere like light and they are obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics. This is why they do not "swarm" like photons, they are not "propagating". They have that "twist" internally and they exhibit mass as a result of internal acceleration in higher dimensions (it's spin). Check out the paper above..."Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology["

The concept of refraction for photons could be dealt with based on the idea that the velocity of light is modified due to lumped inductances and capacitances in the space it is passing into. This would change the size of the packets and change the wavelength inside transparent media. Of course it is actually traveling in higher dimensions so really this "matter" it is passing through is a modification of the size of things. Check out a block of glass (a rectangular prism) and how the internal distances are altered by the different speed of light (that is the meaning of index of refraction). It would not be a "density" or a "pressure" that modifies the light's progress. It has the same effect as if the speed of light in your room was halved... the time light takes to cross the room is now doubled. If you view this from "outside" it looks like light has "slowed down" inside your room. Now if this is due to dielectric and magnetic effects in the space itself then this is an effective geometry change. You can deal with it as an internal doubling of the size of the space rather than a halving of the speed of light. You really will not be able to tell the difference. Light does not think it has slowed down, it deals with it as if it was "increased space".

How am I going here?

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


Don't have time for full reply, but..


About the index (of a medium), I meant the differences in bubble shape cause by the same force (air) moving through a steady aperture (wand) into DIFFERENT mediums. Like index 1 = space, 3 = air, 5 = oil, etc. The entrance point would have an effect on the shape, no? Mainly this would be parallel to the direction.

Yes, I have followed those other threads you mentioned, and the toroidal form is very good. There was someone on this forum about 4 months ago (and less) very excited about "spiral energy". Several years ago, that was me! The fastest thing around MUST be perfectly symmetrical in form and its' movement.

What about the "nature of E & M"? Is there a way to derive a singular source? In which direction (or what angle) do they part from each other in a moving frame of reference? I have read, but never been able to quantify, that an EM wave takes "some time" to "couple" @ 90deg., and for the first "few" cycles, are not in phase. I want to know what is happening during this time.


T.Roc

Zephir
Instead of bubbles I would the appreciate the more realistic concept gravity bounded vibration of space-time, suggested by the Aether theory (please, see my submissions for details)

user posted image

Your remarks concerning the surface tension of such of that particles (which are quantum entangled into one droplet) is rather interesting, because it seems, the whole nuclear interactions (i.e. stability of atoms nuclei) can be explained in therms of minimization surface energy of it, in particular.

BTW The new spell checker here is luxurious, isn't it? Maybe it'll help to improve my terrific czenglish gradually, I hope....
TRoc
Zephir,

Yes, the spell-checker is "luxurious". That was the word i was looking for. tongue.gif

OK, there are 2 people so far on this thread: good elf and me. Who are you telling to "read my theory"? (we both have replied to you before) I love your enthusiasm, I respect your mind; but your posts made without a more direct connection to the subject at hand are starting to seem like commercials!


But, since you are here with your cool animated box...

Imagine the box of dots in your post above, squeezed down 1 row. 7 rows now instead of 8, and the red dots that were "just touching", are now fully overlapped. They maintain their direction and spin, but the geometry of "spacetime" within them changes. In my theory (almost as common as opinions around here!), I call this a "coupled spiral" or "double toroid" (DNA style). It is vibration and direction (2 dim.) + the same, but off-phase vibration (f), and same direction. It is with this form, and energy "resonance" that EM vibrations travel at c. If they don't fully couple, you get evanescent waves, or near-field effects; plus an allowance for other types of wave-travel. (longitudinal, standing, spherical, etc.)



T.Roc
Good Elf
Hi TRoc and Zephir,

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 22 2005+ 03:06 PM)
The entrance point would have an effect on the shape, no? Mainly this would be parallel to the direction.

Well I guess the "shape" of the wand/loop would initially affect the "bubble" but the instant it was free of the bonding surface to would assume a spherical shape and minimize energy surface tension etc. These "dimensional bubbles are not really like the soap bubble analogy. They are higher dimensional objects.

I have developed a fuller description of this thought which is broader and wider than this discussion. This here is the "growing edge" and what I have said there is a more consolidated discussion.
Entanglement and reference frames

I think the photon is surprisingly large and it grows in size relative to human scale and perceptions. Of course this is an "illusion" of our frame of reference but these are compelling illusions aren't they?

For instance the photons emitted from that dipole above are about the size of the wavelength of the dipole and they immediately "spread" to subtend a constant solid angle as time increases. The shape of each one is a hemispherical pancake one wavelength thick. This is the inverse square law. These bubbles do not "burst"
wink.gif While the wavelength does not increase the spread is "vast" after only a short period of travel. Energy density from our perspective appears to be falling in accordance to the inverse square law but energy is conserved within each packet. When they "interact " with matter this hemispherical "pancake" of ever dispersing and spreading energy "collapses" to the particle and will be trapped by an appropriate "cavity" or "resonant structure" through resonance/tunneling and or re-emission at a different wavelength. The cavity might also be just a chunk of wire of an appropriate length with an attached tank circuit. I stress that from it's own perspective the photon is not spreading at all... this is the result of the most extreme form of Lorenz-Fitzgerald Contraction of the surrounding countryside according to it.... where it seems to it that the Universe is "concentrating" everything "forward" as if it was a single point. We see the exact reverse... it is apparently "encompassing" more and more of the countryside as it travels.

Ignore for the moment the fact that we actually can't see a photon until it is scattered and the wave phenomenon is not actually visible for photons that have not involved themselves in interactions. It's shape relative to us individually is a "ball" which immediately deforms into a "curved" pancake of circular cross section and constant thickness. That circular cross section subtends a constant solid angular segment... forever until it hits something it cannot tunnel through. A dielectric trap.

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 22 2005+ 03:06 PM)
What about the "nature of E & M"? Is there a way to derive a singular source? In which direction (or what angle) do they part from each other in a moving frame of reference? I have read, but never been able to quantify, that an EM wave takes "some time" to "couple" @ 90deg., and for the first "few" cycles, are not in phase. I want to know what is happening during this time.

This is inside the evanescent region of the "source" the actual "brane" to "brane" connection. In some ways this is taken care of by Wheeler-Feynman Absorber-Emitter Retarded and Advanced Field Theory (ref. in links below) and there are some interesting papers I have deliberately referenced in the other thread above. Just go there and download them from those links. Actually it is the next post to the one above the link is here...
Posts dealing with all those optical source phenomena

Obviously the source is "asserting" fields within that region that are not necessarily "causal" and are "transactions" in space-time from the point of view of our Universe. In the "brane" space they represent two different sets of boundary conditions on either side of the the two branes. Branes are "Hilbert spaces" and these have unexpected surprising reciprocal relationships. For instance "if" we could move from our "brane" space of 3D + T into a conjugate "brane" through that connection (this is matching the "load" to the "line") and thus the "particle" becomes the "wave" and an ensemble of frequencies in that reciprocal space we could "transmit" to wherever we like. We would need to satisfy a few "curly" boundary conditions for macroscopic particles (like us) to travel in brane-space (Uberspace). In there our space would still appear "flat" from our "perspective" but there would be a distortion in the manner of that described above as we "spread" through the "Universe".

Clearly we are taking an "impulse"... particle and converting it to an "ensemble of waves"... a packet via Fourier "decomposition. Actually this is not a fourier decomposition... it is a "transformation". This optical "trick" was done decades ago and the apparatus was an article in Scientific American... Amateur Scientist Construction Project. I might still be able to track this project down... about 30 years ago I think. Of course it was not couched in "Bohmian Mechanics" terms but it demonstrates this technique is "optically" possible. There are identical transforms that take images through this process using computers today but this is the way "it was meant to be". biggrin.gif The way "God" does it without a computer. Jian Qi Shen's paper in the other reference is a "manual" that shows how to "perfectly" devise optical convolutions and transforms to shift "branes". It is just an exercise in complex analysis in three complex directions. This must "surely" be the most practical way to teleport particles through space. It will happen "one day" simply because it can happen. I would also remind you of that confirmation of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect by Akira Tonomura...
user posted image
Akira Tonomura Apparatus
User posted image
Akira Tonomura Home Page
The Quantum Tunneling Teleporter, The Key To Teleportation?
Here are some publications by Y. Aharanov
PUBLICATIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

All these issues are part of the subject matter of the Geometric Langlands Program that Ed Witten is presently busting his gut on.
GLP Home Page
From this site there are links to free papers on the subject you can download but this stuff is really "tough". That is why we elves prefer to deal with it geometrically and using "technical means". There is a talk by Ed Witten in one of my previous posts which is a bit more "accessible" in mp3 format you can download. That tells you what he is doing. Here is is Ed Witten's Home Page where you can get some more stuff...
Ed Witten's Home Page
Ed Witten's GLP Discussion (40mb)
For reference here is where Witten's Talk came from...
Simons Workshop in Mathematics and Physics 2005: Talks

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 22 2005+ 03:06 PM)
There was someone on this forum about 4 months ago (and less) very excited about "spiral energy". Several years ago, that was me! The fastest thing around MUST be perfectly symmetrical in form and its' movement.

Yep ... that was me, and back into last year as well. I think everybody actually senses this is the way to proceed.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

I have been researching a couple of interesting facts about bubbles and antibubbles. There might be a couple of "tricks" here that could be used in the investigation of "pocket Universes". Here is a source that I think is interesting, talks about ordinary bubbles but no matter.
Bubble Puzzles: Physics Today Article
There are a few equations ... one is "Laplace's Equation" for a spherical bubble and is:
σ = PR/2
where:
σ = surface tension
P = internal pressure
R = radius of bubble

The surface tension is a measure of the energy stored in the bubble. We see that it is proportional to the internal pressure P and R, the bubble radius. The surface area of the bubble is
A = 4user posted imageRuser posted image

Bubbles can be made to resonate and the frequency of resonance is given by this equation...
user posted image
f is the frequency and R is the radius. we see the frequency of oscellation of the bubble is proportional to 1/R smaller bubbles have higher resonant frequencies.

For a de Broglie particle lets assume that the curcumference of the bubble is 2user posted imageR equals nuser posted image so we have...
f user posted image 1/R =2user posted image/nuser posted image
constant = fuser posted image which is an expression of a velocity.
Wikipedia says this of surface tension...
QUOTE (Surface tension(Wikipedia)+)
Dimensional analysis shows that the units of surface tension (N·m-1) are equivalent to joules per square metre (J·m-2). This means that surface tension can also be considered as surface energy. If a surface with surface tension σ is expanded by a unit area, then the increase in the surface's stored energy is also equal to σ.

The surface area of a sphere is equal to...
user posted image
The surface energy is σ (surface tension) times this area for any bubble.

I am not entirely sure what I can use this for but I will think of something interesting.

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


On this: "QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 22 2005 @ 03:06 PM)
The entrance point would have an effect on the shape, no? Mainly this would be parallel to the direction.
GE- "Well I guess the "shape" of the wand/loop would initially affect the "bubble" but the instant it was free of the bonding surface to would assume a spherical shape and minimize energy surface tension etc."

I am talking about dimensional deforming of the bubble because of changes in pressures in the medium, not changing the shape of the loop. The entrance point could be squeezed down (compared to the size of the wand loop) and horizontally flattened bubbles would form. If we are blowing air into a bubble forming in air, then they are easily made, and spherical. (=pressure) If we blow air into a bubble forming in water, or oil, the relationship between surface tension, internal pressure, and bubble radius will change. (it will settle into a sphere because of the restorative forces - adiabatic)

About this : "The surface energy is σ (surface tension) times this area for any bubble."

If this potential energy is directly tied to the area of the sphere, then aren't de Broglie waves just the radius of the same sphere? Then where is pie in the the energy equation?

Reflect on this please: 3.86e-6 / (pie X wavelength) = E (in eVolts)
I have only worked on this in optical frequencies, but it works very well to round numbers, and is a much easier method.

Also, did you have a comment or answer to for how long/ how many cycles an EM wave takes for the E field and B field to synch-up at 90 degrees?


Those were great links, I had read some already, but much was new as well. Thanks!



T.Roc
Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

I suppose it is easy to "gloss over " a very important point. The equation which shows the resonant frequency of a bubble is inversely proportional to R (the radius).
The Heisenberg Uncertinty Relationship is an expression of this evanescent concept
user posted image
The smaller the radius the higher the frequency of "oscillation". At the same time the surface area of the bubble stores energy in the form of "tension". As a bubble gets smaller the energy stored in the surface gets smaller unless something is compensating for it. In actual fact this surface will be excited into "spherical harmonics". I will call your attention to these pictures of the excitation states of this "bubble". Please note this is not quantum physics just spherical harmonics based on Fourier decomposition. Stilll... it's very pretty!
Spherical Harmonics
Look near the bottom of this page and have a little "thinky" about this. I did and my brain hurts... he he he! This is highly "exciting" eh! biggrin.gif I think you will find your pi in there along with the legendre polynomials and a couple of "quantum numbers" as it were. Nothing exciting but not quantum physics... or is it. These are just all "harmonics" of excitation.
.user posted imageUser posted image
I don't want to make too much of this yet but consider that we have E = hf. The photon's energy is proportional to frequency. This resonant object must store energy as a "frequency" too. If you "excite a bubble" assuming it is "infinitely" flexible and will not "burst" the surface area will depend on how much energy this frequency that is pumped into the bubble has. Think of the bubble surface "undulating" at the frequency of the natural vibration rate of the "cavity". This effectively increases the surface area of the bubble by deformation. . The total energy of the "bubble" is the sum of all these "modes" and I would ask you to think of other branes too. Luckily you can excite these bubbles this way and not "burst". We have seen these before but these are "nice" pictures.

In the case of a higher dimensional "bubble" being excited, all these "objects" will be projected on to a "flattened space-time" in a mere "three dimensions".

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 25 2005+ 06:57 PM)
Also, did you have a comment or answer to for how long/ how many cycles an EM wave takes for the E field and B field to synch-up at 90 degrees?

I do not think there is anything hard and fast about that. Within the eveanescent field the "synch-up" does not occur and it really does not happen until it is about a wavelength outside the "particle" before it settles down to a propagating wave packet. From those pretty pictures above and the real nature of "excited" states it is not as obvious that it is "simple". These are "radiation patterns" surrounding (on the one hand) nuclei and on the other "antennae". Of course the branes under excitation will "hybridize" into less complex forms, you can see why a Calabi-Yau Space might be something highly complex since all these modes will be simultaneously present. I still maintain that for atoms and any fermion or boson this structure exists all the time as an excited entity. The question is why does this energy not radiate away? Since this could be a dimensional object this is a dimensional trap not just a "place" in 3D space-time.

I have a question for you. I like that equation but I have missed your point.
QUOTE
Reflect on this please: 3.86e-6 / (pie X wavelength) = E (in eVolts)
I have only worked on this in optical frequencies, but it works very well to round numbers, and is a much easier method.

Is this related to...
E = hf = hc/user posted image
where...
user posted image
and...
user posted image
user posted image
back substitute for © or at least "part" of it.... the rest carried as a constant...
Help this "poor" elf out and spell it out to him. I gotta know.... please!

Here is a Hydrogen Atom "visualization" for comparison...
Superposition state of the hydrogen
(Quicktime)

Cheers
TRoc
Hello GE,


Sorry it took so long.

No, we don't want to gloss over the inverse relationship, and the symmetry it provides.

In looking into the question of the "spiral" propagation of the 2 coupled, and perpendicular fields, I realized that at very high (optical photon) frequencies, the "spiral" would look like a small diameter lock-washer. The 2 ends being separated by a distance. If they were together, you would have a circle, and pi could used. Pulling them apart would NOT increase the ratio of the radius to the circumference of the circle (pi). Pulling them apart until the distance between them was equal to 2r would make the model symmetrical.

The relationship of energy moving around the spiral to its' wavelength (= to 2r) would be ~ pi. Note here a departure on my part from the norm; I am not talking here about a wave packet, or a stream, etc., I am talking about the simple case of a single photon. Because only 1 phase of the wave exists at a time, I use 2r to equal half of the phase. The other half will exist in the next frame, at 1/2 wavelength distance away. So it is a circle cut in 1/2 and separated by time, and connected at the "node" in between the phases.

Since time has already been used to define the frequency and wavelength, and a constant speed is the "proof", it does not need to stay in the model. Symmetrical distance takes its' place. (X axis) The crest to crest measurement, in 3 dimensions, is the same for side to side, front to back, and top to bottom.

Now that we have a fully symmetrical model, and we are using measurements of inverse proportions, we should be able to come up with a constant Energy value per distance (area in 3D). I am saying that wavelength is primary, and frequency secondary. I use Occam's razor to cut h out of the picture. (not entirely)

For every nanometer a wave "travels" around the spiral, that area is divided by 3.86e-6 (you should still be using 3.895e-6; why later) to describe the energy density of that area. At this point, you probably see the sphere model similarities. The same energy is produced by all vibrations, it is only the area that it is confined to that changes. Without boundary conditions, no energy exchange takes place, it just "conserves". Left alone, this vibration will assume the longest possible wavelength, spreading the energy over the entire universe. That begins to define gravity, but that is another matter.

I'm afraid I've run out of time (as usual), I'll add more later.



T.Roc



TRoc
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
continued


First, I was a little sloppy in description: the lock washer analogy is meant to describe the overall wave form; the 2 coupled phases ( E & M ) are going around the perimeter of the wave in double helix fashion. Any better? Just ask or blast, I'm not offended by critique.

These 2 vibrations are symmetrical. Wavelength and frequency are inverse, also symmetrical.

The logical hangup that standard physics has is this: Speed is constant, the relationship of F to W is constant, but energy changes with frequency. There should be an equivalent energy equation using wavelength. More importantly, when we take our theory"out of the box" (lab) and into the world, things get very complex very quickly. Now we have waves of CONSTANT frequency refracting or reflecting and having the wavelength and energy values change. WHAT?? Where is the parameter that allows this? If W changes, F must change; if F changes © changes - this is not allowed! What about amplitude? More A = more E; but F remains the same! I thought E = h/F pretty much covered that? Apparently not! I realise there is also an equation for energy using wavelength, but the point is, W x F must always = © in the same medium. The "amplitude" in EM is intensity, and doesn't change the energy. So which parameter changes?

The addition of Pi, and spiral propagation into the mix solves these problems. It allows the bubble to "stretch", while following the "rules" of constant F W inverse relationship, and constant velocity. This is "apparent" amplitude, but not intensity. The crest to crest measurement can stay the same, while the waves' true distance can change. I think we can agree that a wave is spiral in 3D, not just the 2D sine curve. Note that they look identical from any point parallel to direction. From ANY direction (at any angle except 90/180), you can only interact with ONE phase of the wave at a time. This explains the near-field effect of reflective polarization, because the far-field evanescent, opposite phase continues through the plane and "dies", while the SAME phase of the wave reflects and continues the process in a new direction. This does not require time reversal!

Enough for now..



T.Roc
TRoc
GE,


I am following some other threads that you are "linking" to this one, but I only have so much time! I am just going to respond here to the related topics.

First, there is news that backs up what I'm saying, yet in a round about way.

In this article, "First helical structure in the nano-world", on Phys.Org 9/29/05 I gleaned a few quotes.

"Although a commonplace structure in nature, the helix remains a mystery to scientific researchers. In biology, the structure is important as DNA is helical and so does the substructure of many proteins."

".. nanohelices, which get their shape from twisting forces created by a small mismatch between the stripes, are produced using a vapor-solid growth process at high temperature. "

A small mismatch describes the "first" cycle of an EM wave, where the 2 phases are not aligned at 90 degrees... Giving it permanent torque.

"With these nanohelices, we only introduce the carrier gas when the temperature reaches a certain level. That allows formation to begin in a vacuum, which is the key to controlling the helix formation."

A helix needs a vacuum to form. (perfectly balanced environment)

".. creates structures with polar surfaces", " The nanohelices exist in both right- and left-handed versions, with production split approximately 50-50 between the two directions." and, "Such a material of nano-helices is found in a perfect structure and noted for its rigidity".

Polarity, spin, chiral, perfection. Good stuff.


Here is a link to an interesting site on the Physics of Sound. The spherical wave equations, and the analogous Maxwell equation are particularly good. Also, note the conditions at which the sphere can be treated like a plane wave.

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/Physics/Exa...ave_spectra.htm]spherical wave equations[/URL]

Far field changes the formula:

In the far-field



Whereas in the other limit



At this point, we have shown that we can produce a plane wave within a spherical region centered at the origin, of radius as large as we want. In the far-field this plane wave segment will radiate essentially only in the direction perpendicular to its phase front, which corresponds to the angle q in the equation above. The same sound pressure is produced for any direction in space. As N becomes larger, we approach a plane wave as in the spectrum of equation (W4). Therefore at a given angle q the sound pressure is directly proportional to the value of the spectrum amplitude function at the corresponding value of b . However there is an additional angular weighting function. To determine this, we consider the potential function for a sound source that radiates a spherical wave with equal pressure in all directions. In spherical coordinates"


Since this pattern has directivity of unity by definition, in general the directivity pattern of the sound radiation must be



So equation (W21) provides the general relationship between the spectrum amplitude function and the far-field pattern.



"As footnote to this derivation, if we tried to start with a plane wave occupying all space, we would quickly get into hot water mathematically. For openers, you can't get to the far-field of an aperture of infinite radius. If one correctly evaluates the exact integral expression, equation (G14), for this case you simply recover the field of the plane wave - no delta function. Carving out a section of finite radius with a cookie-cutter would result in a discontinuous field that doesn't satisfy the wave equations. So using the spherical wave solution is much sounder (pun intended) mathematically. "

From the same site, different page:



"This is the wave produced by an elementary point source. Power flow in this case is inversely proportional to r 2. Except for this, when r is much greater than the wavelength l=2p /k, the behavior is very similar to a plane wave. This is called "far-field behavior". When r is comparable to, or smaller than, l the behavior is more complex, even for this simple source. For a real source of finite dimension, the behavior in the "near field" is even more complex.


The ratio of the magnitudes of pressure and velocity for this elementary wave is the blue curve shown here [36 kb] as a function of r. It is seen that when r is greater than a wavelength the ratio is already close to the ratio for a plane wave in free space. For small values of r the ratio is very small. The relative phase (not shown) is close to 90 degrees for r=.01 wavelengths, and about 10 degrees at r=1 wavelength. At r=10 wavelengths the phase is about 1 degree, so at this point the behavior is very close to a plane wave."



I'm not sure the equations copied over.


enjoy!


T.Roc

**edit** sorry about the lack of equations, they didn't go.
Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

Sorry that the equations did not "go in" there. biggrin.gif Please... I gotta know. Links will do fine.

This link to a parallel topic has some "exact solutions" to the short dipole radiator... Please note this picture is a three dimensional "thin slice" through the dipole way down in the center there. This shows the way photons actually "spread" in detail (each photon is approximately the size of a wavelength in "thickness" but is a pancake of tremendous size seen from our frame of reference. These show some interesting effects that are of interest to this discussion. I call your attention to "energy inductive suck-back" (see dotted line). Notice the explanation of the static, near and far field discussion I have there. It is all very "artificial" and is really a function of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship. The maths associated with all these phenomena are generally too "slack" to give true insight except in a few references like this.

String Theory

I will look into what you say here. I might have some questions.

Here is the main image but there really is more where this is discussed.
user posted image
This may take a little while to load since it is 400K.

Your link above has some problem... just paste the URL into the post. The PHP code works it all out. Notice you can go back and "edit" your work.

Cheers
TRoc
GE,



I fixed the link.


All of the text on my post, following the link, was from that page.




T.Roc


Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

That is a very good link. Always they take a limiting case to show the principle rather than express the fact that the energy is carried not by plane waves but by curved surfaces. The rest of the discussion is quite illuminating. But that line...
"For imaginary values of kz , g(kx,ky) does not contribute to the far-field." (Ignoring the fact this treatment was not specifically designed for use with electromagnetism... ) Well of course not since in the far field there is no non-linear curvature. Always the treatment is to show "general behavior" and not emphasize the specifics of "radiation". The treatment is very "classical" and just right for this kind of treatment which is for "non-particles". Sound is "nearly" the right approach (except for the fact that we have transverse waves instead of longitudinal waves).

Thanks for that... It must come in handy "some time".

I will be back in a little while.

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


Could you tell me how to post pic, charts, etc. here?

Thanks!


T.Roc


Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Oct 3 2005+ 02:29 AM)
Could you tell me how to post pic, charts, etc. here?

Sure thing friend... there are a couple of restrictions. You can't post your own pictures without using a web page somewhere else. Of course you may have access to a web site yourself then the link can be used...

Just click on the "IMG" button. If you are in normal mode it will place the opening tag at the bottom of your page you then paste the URL of the image after it... follow that by a second click on the "IMG" button. Then cut and paste it anywhere into the post (the two tags and enclosed URL). Be sure that you get all the brackets.

The same applies to creating a formula or equations. It is a tedious process but it can be done the same as above but using a "fixed" page of small gif images. You can get them from here...
http://us.metamath.org/symbols/symbols.html
As you would with any image right click on any small image in your browser and "copy link location". Come back to your editor and paste between the IMG tags. Slow but sure.
It helps to have an additional window open to do this ... one with your image and the other with your "editor" window.
Use "File/New Window" in Mozilla or "File/New/Window" in IE.

Is that enough to get you started...

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


I should have tagged the end of my question with ".. without referencing to a web site."

Sorry, no help.

I will work without my "visual representations".


Any thoughts on this quantity "3.86e-6" ?

Or deriving the speed of light w/o Maxwell?



T.Roc



Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

I need to see what your point really is here. I am sure you are on to something but I have not quite "got it " yet.
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 29 2005+ 08:05 PM)
The logical hangup that standard physics has is this: Speed is constant, the relationship of F to W is constant, but energy changes with frequency. There should be an equivalent energy equation using wavelength.

I "assume" you are saying you have the relationship..
© = fuser posted image
Where f is frequency and user posted image is wavelength and © is the speed of light.
You then have the classic expression...
E = hf
where h = Planck's constant.
There is an equation where we have...
E = h©/user posted image
Now you could have a hypothetical "Uberspace" proto-photon. It is uncharged and unspreading (lets say) a pure impulse. The radius of the particle is R and the wavelength is 2R in the direction of motion. Lets say the particle is executing a spiral path with a winding mode of 1: 1 that is for a distance of 2R travel it "winds" about its diameter once. The electric and magnetic fields are projections of this "null" charged object into space-time such that at any instant the "electric" and "magnetic" charges sum to "zero" (orthogonal spirals with a 90 degree phase difference compactified from higher dimensions into 3D space... or an extended "rotating field" of electric and magnetic charges in 3D space). These are "extended objects" not a simple wiggling "rope". The length of this path for winding mode of 1 would be the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle of base 2user posted imageR and height 2R.
On calculation this equals 2R * 3.2969 * f where f is the frequency.

Now for any photon E = hf where h = 6.626 * 10user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image Js

This suggests you could replace h with a geometric property of the speed of light eliminating the "constant" of h if this could be related to energy in someway. What we have is the length of the spiral photon path relative to it diameter in "Uberspace" for winding ratio of 1 : 1.

2R is the wavelength of the photon in this instance. Thus the winding path of the photon is 3.2969 * ©

The winding modes might define different types of particle.

Fractional winding modes would lead to "electrons" (mobius path) if it was trapped in a bounded dimensional cavity.

Am I "warm"??? What is next? What is your question aimed at? It is just getting interesting. biggrin.gif I still do not think I have your full meaning yet.

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


Hi again, thank you for your response.


On my quote (that you quoted):

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Sep 29 2005 @ 08:05 PM)
The logical hangup that standard physics has is this: Speed is constant, the relationship of F to W is constant, but energy changes with frequency. There should be an equivalent energy equation using wavelength.

I should have mentioned (excluded, actually) hc/w .

(too vaguely) I mentioned some other requisites in my "philosophy".

1. Include Pi
2. Do not include time. (which excludes using velocity, too)
3. Start with the distance of one symmetrical cycle.
4. Use 3 dimensional model.
5. Spiral the two fields around an axis. (that neither ever touches, like they do in 2D form)

The goal was to give form to an EM wave, that explained the empirical data. Dimension, distance, symmetry, and geometry that would lead to E and ©, and inverse w to f relationship.

QUOTE
It is uncharged and unspreading (lets say) a pure impulse.


Yes to the former, no to the latter. Since there is no empirical data on the "acceleration phase" of a photon wave (when the 2 fields are not 90 degrees to each other, or not "coupled"), I can not model it. I am forming a theory, and am not ready to make that prediction. Consider this wave to be "mature", and stable. This is the way we usually see it. My view on this is that if the "pure impulse" was constant, the SOL would be infinite. My model shows the first phase to be "accelerate", and the second phase to be "coast". These are dualistic, and reflective of the fields they represent.

More later..


T.Roc







Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

Have you ever seen this "conjecture" by Richard Feynman?

James G. Gilson, Fine Structure Constant

QUOTE
There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to -0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!


There is commentry and extras on the webpage above...

I am still thinking... I will return but I thought you would like this... wink.gif

Addendum:
A Constant that Isn't Constant
A Constant Worthy of the Name

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


No, I hadn't read that. It was very interesting. I am also not too familiar with the term "winding mode"; could I read more somewhere?

QUOTE: "On calculation this equals 2R * 3.2969 * f where f is the frequency. "

I didn't follow that. (3.2969)??

Also, remember to use 4.135667e-15 for h in eV.



T.Roc
Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

QUOTE
QUOTE: "On calculation this equals 2R * 3.2969 * f where f is the frequency. "
I didn't follow that. (3.2969)??

Yeah... Drop that "f" there... The spiral path is straight pythagorean maths (uncorrected of course)...
L = user posted image((2user posted imageR)user posted image + (2R)user posted image)
L= user posted image(4user posted imageuser posted imageRuser posted image + (2R)user posted image)
L= 2Ruser posted image(user posted imageuser posted image + 1)
2R is a wavelength of the propagating photon (R = photon radius). That is ...
L= user posted imageuser posted image(user posted imageuser posted image + 1)
Lf = 3.2969 * ©
For all photons E = hf Where h = 6.626 *10user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image Js
E = hf = 3.2969 * ©/L * h
damn... used too many symbols!
Where L = winding path of the photon ratio 1:1. Rotates once for progressing one wavelength. Other "particles" would have different winding numbers. I am not sure what to do now. ©/L must have dimensions of frequency (1/T) multiplied by that "constant". The constant is a "factor" for the curved path of a photon as a spiral path.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
QUOTE: "On calculation this equals 2R * 3.2969 * f where f is the frequency. "
I didn't follow that. (3.2969)??

Yeah... Drop that "f" there... The spiral path is straight pythagorean maths (uncorrected of course)...
L = user posted image((2user posted imageR)user posted image + (2R)user posted image)
L= user posted image(4user posted imageuser posted imageRuser posted image + (2R)user posted image)
L= 2Ruser posted image(user posted imageuser posted image + 1)
2R is a wavelength of the propagating photon (R = photon radius). That is ...
L= user posted imageuser posted image(user posted imageuser posted image + 1)
Lf = 3.2969 * ©
For all photons E = hf Where h = 6.626 *10user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image Js
E = hf = 3.2969 * ©/L * h
damn... used too many symbols!
Where L = winding path of the photon ratio 1:1. Rotates once for progressing one wavelength. Other "particles" would have different winding numbers. I am not sure what to do now. ©/L must have dimensions of frequency (1/T) multiplied by that "constant". The constant is a "factor" for the curved path of a photon as a spiral path.
Also, remember to use 4.135667e-15 for h in eV.

What is this going to do for me??? Joule seconds works for me since it is an impulse in MKS units. Leaving it as h for now seems appropriate until you tell me why this?
Have a look now at "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark. There must be somethng that has a meaning here.

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


Yes, I have read that. ("Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark) I think it is very good, with much to glean.

The reason I said use "4.135667e-15 for h in eV" was because I was originally
talking about 3.86e-6/Pi x wavelength = energy in electron Volts. Not about your last post, which I'm not familiar with. Are you saying that 3.2969 is the new ratio of the radius to the circumference of a spiral? (instead of a circle) An increase of 0.1554 to the ratio? You also said "uncorrected", so I'm not sure.

Most important..

Did you see this?

2005 Nobel Prize - Physics

This is absolutely phenomenal !! Great news !!

It is not directly tied to what we have been talking about here, but fantastic nonetheless ! It directly supports some work I have done. It is one thing to have a few papers loosely correlating your work, but when a paper wins the NP for Physics, that is wonderful!


T.Roc






Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

Sorry I have not been back here. I need a little break from this I think. Not specifically this thread though.

The Nobel Prize was a well deserved bit of research. It is just that it takes so long... I imagine that many of the candidates fail on the most important part of the test for the Prize... you need to alive when they finally award you the prize... he he he!

I was wondering if any recognition has been noted of the work function of photoelectric surfaces being "theoretically related" to the emission of gravitons.
ignoring the data, a critique of 20th C. physics
I put a speculation there and I was wondering if this might be in your line of interest. It seems to me that the emission of gravitons would be beset by being below the work function of potential emission surfaces. This may limit emission of gravitons to only very energetic processes. What do you think? That answer is not "authoritative" but only a speculation of mine. This is within the nature of "electricity and magnetism" as a topic. The graviton is in other ways "similiar" to a photon when exiting the surface of a generator (just rather harder to detect)... he he he!

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


Let us continue our fruitful conversation. I read the thread on gravity waves/gravitons that you mentioned. Quite a bit of verbal ping pong with Zephir; I decided to stay on the bench. It is "in my line of interest", as you queried.

To get to the true nature of electricity and magnetism, it seems to me that you will unveil the true nature of gravity. Whether in the form of "normal" gravity waves, or "violent" graviton emissions (which seemed to cause great consternation on the aforementioned discussion/thread).


Let's begin by bring to the table any similarities that we know (or think) exist between E/M waves and G waves.

1. The obvious: both are termed "waves", which means they are Vibrations.
2. They both are "quadrupole" oscillations.

I will stop here for discourse.


TRoc



TRoc
GE,


Vibration: if I can show a general rule that applies to all non-static dualities, and produces an attraction or a repulsion, then this commonality becomes very important.

Quadrupole: in an EM wave, you have 2 "coupled", independent vibrations that are oscillating at 90 degrees to each other, and are moving "forward". From an outside "observer", this would appear as 4 things: +/- electric, and +/- magnetic.

This then becomes the "spiral" illusion as these 4 qualities trace out a circle, becoming a "tube" while moving forward under the "torque" of the electric/magnetic relationship.


Also important to my thinking, is the non-particle approach. Have you heard of Dr. Milo Wolff, and his wave theories? They are quite adequate in explaining things in that perspective.


TRoc


TRoc
GE,


Using the principal of "least action/easiest path", I conclude that all vibrations in a defined space will be "dominated" by the largest wavelength. From the "bubble" approach (spherical waves), the pressure can decrease in this way.

All mass is producing "gravity waves", and all massive bodies in a defined space are in a state of equilibrium, from any single point in time. This does not mean the masses are static, but their movement would produce a Doppler shift in the gravitational waves.

In a defined space, the gravitational waves constitute the largest wavelength. Like a laser, the continual action of "dominance" by the longest wavelength will ultimately produce a single wavelength; this is termed spontaneous resonance in the laser, and I would say "equilibrium" for gravity. This equilibrium state provides the "medium" for waves in space, just as the root note provides the equilibrium state in a musical chord of many (smaller) wavelengths (notes).

I believe that this is the approach that will "unify" QM and Gravity under one set of rules. Let me know what you think.


TRoc


Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

Good to see you back here again.
QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Nov 9 2005+ 05:58 AM )
In a defined space, the gravitational waves constitute the largest wavelength. Like a laser, the continual action of "dominance" by the longest wavelength will ultimately produce a single wavelength; this is termed spontaneous resonance in the laser, and I would say "equilibrium" for gravity

A question there... is it just because the absorption and emission of "light" from atoms usually "degrade" to lower frequencies. Have you got a reference to "spontaneous resonance"? I tried to "google" it but I missed the mark there. Do you mean the primary optical cavity mode of the laser tube?

In the case of gravity I am not so sure? Gravity might occur in the "Uberspace"... It would not be the conventional gravity "propagating" through space-time that many believe in. Maybe it would have an expression there in "Space-time". There is still a problem of the "work function". Gravity waves in "Space-time" could only occur it there were massive oscillations in mass. I suppose "Uberspace" gravity might be possible. All that would be in the hidden higher dimensions.

How do you inflate the large voids with the lowest energy oscillations? Is it just that there are more "gravitons" of long wavelength to make up for the low energy they have. I have an idea that "Space-time" was inflated using spin energy. Sort of the way that you spin out pizza's only in many more dimensions (6D + T)... biggrin.gif

You will need to tell me a bit about this please if you have time.

Cheers
gadfly
Hi - Good Elf and TRoc;

Currently I am focused upon issues other than physics, but from time to time I do visit this forum to review some of the discussions.

This topic is very interesting.

Many physicists seem to be unaware of phasor equations from electrical engineering.

Phasors are ‘vectors’ that were introduced by applied mathematician and electrical engineer Charles Proteus Steinmetz in 1893 as a method for solving AC circuits. Steinmetz emigrated from Germany to the US. He worked as chief engineer for General Electric.

Phasors are complex numbers that represent the amplitude and phase of sinusoidal functions and may have many forms: such as
Polar ------------- Z = angle theta
Exponential ----- Z = |Z| e^{theta}
Trigonometric --- Z = |Z| (cos theta + j sin theta)
Rectangular ----- Z = R + jX
--- where R is real, X is imaginary, Z is absolute value
The sinusoidal voltage function rotates counterclockwise.

Phasors are complex harmonic oscillators related to the Schrödinger Equation.

Gabriel Kron was an electrical engineer who also worked for General Electric had an interesting paper:
'Electric Circuit Models of the Schrödinger Equation', Phys. Rev. 67, 39-43 (1945)
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/K...ronGabriel1.htm

Kron also wrote a book:
'Tensor Analysis of Networks', Wiley, New York; Chapman & Hall, London, 1939

Kron was the subject of a paper:
'Kron's Non-Riemannian Electrodynamics' by Banesh Hoffmann
Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 535–540 (1949) [Issue 3 – July 1949]
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v21/i3/p535_1

Richard Feynman reportedly used the “phasor analysis technique” to develop “his 'sum over paths' method”.
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_prog...sch/Feynm1.html

Perhaps the best phasor diagram is dynamically illustrated at this website:
http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~mikec/P2421_Not...rs/Phasors.html

Note that this 2D representation strongly suggests that a 3D representation is a helix as opposed to any other spiral.

This representation is similar to Wilson lines on circle as discussed in chapter 18.3 of ‘A First Course in String Theory: Books’ by Barton Zwiebach

There are several other websites that discuss phasors, but a few of the more interesting, include:

1- An Application of Trigonometry and Vectors to Alternating Current
http://www.math.bcit.ca/examples/elex/trig_vectors/

2- ALTERNATING CURRENT (Chapter 32)
http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/facstaff/becke...ac_circuits.htm

3 - phase modulation
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/nidzgloss.nsf/w...6256879007092F1

4 - SIGNAL PROCESSING & SIMULATION NEWSLETTER
Complex representation of Fourier series
[Euler’s identity: -1 = e^{iPI}] = e^{jwt} = cos wt + i sin wt (1)
“Bertrand Russell called this equation “the most beautiful, profound and subtle expression in mathematics”. Richard Feynman, the noble laureate said that it is “the most amazing equation in all of mathematics”. In electrical engineering, this enigmatic equation is equivalent in importance to F = ma.”
http://www.complextoreal.com/tfft2.htm

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
http://www.malvino.com/intuitiv.htm

I do hope that physics will integrate this element from electrical engineering into any discussion of electromagnetism.

Continued good fortune to all.
Good Elf
Hi Gadfly and TRoc,

Gadfly... you are the "Jewel in the Crown"... truer words were never spoken... he he he!

The basis of "String Theory" is Euler's formula that you have put there... this sums up so much but it is too compact for humans to fully understand.
user posted image
And of course the obligatory pretty picture showing the same thing...
User posted image
Eulers Formula Image
and the "most beautiful form"...
which is even more mysteriously stated in this form for e...
user posted image
user posted image
Where a more mathematical definition of e is obtained by asking which function f equals its own derivative.
user posted image
The reference you have there...
SIGNAL PROCESSING & SIMULATION NEWSLETTER Brings it together. I have discussed a more general aspect of all this myself elsewhere yesterday (see ref. below) ...
Here we see Euler's formula in a time dependent form as a spiral.
user posted image
Symultaneously projecting this function on the (left) imaginary plane and the (bottom) real plane leads to two sine waves with the correct phase relationships we need for electromagnetism (90 degree phase shift). We see that from your animation shown in one of your links for just one of these components...
User posted image
Here is that time dependent form of the same equation...
user posted image
A six dimensional version of this would have i,j,k ... all three complex planes.
This is "elf's" view of the nature of Life the Universe and Everything..
light's clock, my thoughts of time at C - Qwerty
You will see a strong... non-particle view of the Universe. The Theory of Quanta comes from the "windowing" of the transform by the higher dimensional "particle" envelope by its 2D expression in (what appears to be) the bulk 3D + T "Space-time". What I have said there is this is the only process that is acting in the Universe for everything we see at all scales. Totally holographic... would be interested in your point of view and TRoc's ideas as well if you have the time. Clearly both Einstein and Tesla would be "pleased". wink.gif I think we all realize "deeply" that this is the ultimate nature of the geometry of our Universe. Easy to state but difficult to prove.

Just "love" that collection of sites and papers there. Thanks heaps.

PS: Some other important links...
Particle-Wave duality, The Young double slit experiment - first
Particle-Wave duality, The Young double slit experiment - next

Cheers
gadfly
Hi Good Elf:

Euler had many fantastic contributions to physics including his beta function.

I also found two reading lists for string / field theory, although they are somewhat dated.

1 - “The following is a sample of references and reviews of advanced topics in field and string theory. The list was initially compiled in the year 2000, and may not fully reflect more recent advances. Sporadic updates are contemplated.”
http://hamilton.uchicago.edu/reading.html

2 - John Baez - “String theory means different things to different people.”
He also has examples of Baez diagrams.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week42.html

I find your references excellent, especially
Superposition state of the hydrogen
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/vqm/page...es/202_19a.html

RE - your post of Nov 8 2005, 03:34 PM in
Forum: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Topic: light's clock, my thoughts of time at C
QUOTE
Those "complex number planes" deal with those extra "dimensions". It is up to you to consider if these dimensions are "real" or simply "mathematical artifices". The difference is if they are mathematical artifices there is no real significane in this "color" display. If they are "higher real" spatial dimensions you have "String Theory", or at least one varient of it. It is completely integratible throughout all physics as an "extra layer" of information. The complex planes in up to an extra six dimensions could represent the complex planes in electromagnetism and thus provide ways to access them.

Complex numbers may be existent invisible numbers as opposed to non-existent imaginary numbers.

Paul J Nahin is a professor of Electrical Engineering at UNH. He wrote an interesting book ‘An Imaginary Tale: The Story of {square root}-1’.

He remarks that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz named this an imaginary number because he and others in the mathematical field at that time [circa ~1646-1716] could NOT explain "i" and thus was considered unreal and impossible.

[This is supported by - “As another instance of Leibniz' theological simulacrums, we have his remark that imaginary numbers are like the Holy Ghost of Christian scriptures-a sort of amphibian, midway between existence and nonexistence.”]
http://library.thinkquest.org/22584/temh3016.htm

He credits surveyor Caspar Wessel as the first to demonstrate the existence of “i” in polar form with a paper published 1797.

Chapter 3 - “This is so important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in the entire book that I have enclosed: “i” = {square root}-1 = 1 angle 90 degrees.
Thus “i” “is the directed line segment of length one pointing straight up the vertical axis.
Multiplying by {square root}-1 is “geometrically, simply a rotation by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise (CCW) sense.”

The last sentence of last chapter is: “But now, as you close this book, you can appreciate the ironic truth in the fact that there is nothing at all imaginary about {square root}-1

Charles Steinmetz is regarded as ‘the wizard who generated electricity from “i““.

“Here's an interesting anecdote, as told by Charles M. Vest, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, during commencement on June 4th, 1999. "In the early years of this century, Steinmetz was brought to General Electric's facilities in Schenectady, New York. GE had encountered a performance problem with one of their huge electrical generators and had been absolutely unable to correct it. Steinmetz, a genius in his understanding of electromagnetic phenomena, was brought in as a consultant - not a very common occurrence in those days, as it would be now. Steinmetz also found the problem difficult to diagnose, but for some days he closeted himself with the generator, its engineering drawings, paper and pencil. At the end of this period, he emerged, confident that he knew how to correct the problem. After he departed, GE's engineers found a large "X" marked with chalk on the side of the generator casing. There also was a note instructing them to cut the casing open at that location and remove so many turns of wire from the stator. The generator would then function properly. And indeed it did. Steinmetz was asked what his fee would be. Having no idea in the world what was appropriate, he replied with the absolutely unheard of answer that his fee was $1000. Stunned, the GE bureaucracy then required him to submit a formally itemized invoice. They soon received it. It included two items: 1. Marking chalk "X" on side of generator: $1. 2. Knowing where to mark chalk "X": $999."
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/steinmetz.html

Sometimes this story is told with a $10,000 fee and $9,999 for knowing where to put the X.

Ending with my new favorite quote -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
Good Elf
Hi Gadfly and TRoc,

He he he... seen that story about Charles Steinmetz before. Always good to bring it back into memory. I have forgotten how many dollars were involved... biggrin.gif I would say this to everyone that the square root of minus one is certainly not imaginary and is essential to describing our Universe. What I do not think is written is that there is not going to be just one "i" to describe the Universe.

I had a look at some of those references and "freaked". I am convinced that I am not a Mathematician. I do not believe that you need to be a Mathematician to understand the Universe or how it works. You need to look over all this temporary confusion and see the "goal" and in the end that goal will be worth achieving. Much of this manipulation is based on relatively easy concepts and these can be absorbed into "intelligent" software that can remove the burden of "calculation" from the likes of me and solve the problems. I think it is my duty only to see the "big picture" and when I can grasp that through it's mechanism I will have achieved the main goal.

We probably need a new maths tool that underpins the non-linear nature of all of this to achieve this "unification". At the moment it is Mathematicians that seem to be hell bent on confusing the Physics inside a smokescreen of Generalization. Most real problems in Physics have resolutions which can be performed on the back of cigarette packets... at least conceptually anyway. In a particular instance it will require something better than ball park figures.

Cheers
TRoc
GadZOOKS!!


It is now very late, what a great collection of links! Thank you Gadfly. There is much to comment on, but I must sleep. blink.gif


In case you make it back before I do, what can you make of "3.86e-6/Pi x wavelength = E (in eV)" from a phasor perspective?


more tomorrow...



TRoc


gadfly
A potentially very important phenomenon "massless Dirac fermions" of graphite is discussed in Nature Contents: 10 November 2005 Volume 438 Number 7065, pp 129-256 © 2005 Nature Publishing group
Materials Science: Erasing electron mass Charles L. Kane
Two-dimensional graphite could be useful in carbon-based electronic devices. How electrons move in these structures seems best described by relativistic quantum physics, modeling them as if they have no mass at all.
http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eVl60KONyE0Ch0pIp0ET

A summarized description is found in Scientific American
Graphite Found to Exhibit Surprising Quantum Effects
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&...35483414B7F0000

Hi TRoc:

Good to hear from you.

I will have to take some time to think about "3.86e-6/Pi x wavelength = E (in eV)" from a phasor perspective.

Hi Good Elf:

I agree with you to some degree about the relationship of mathematics and physics.
However, mathematician David Hilbert [allegedly "the greatest influence in geometry since Euclid (325 BC)"] is quoted as saying about 75 years ago [after the duality of matrix and wave mechanics were demonstrated]:
QUOTE
"Physics is obviously far too difficult to be left to the physicists and mathematicians still think they are God's gift to science."

http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/quantum/quant.htm

I really enjoyed the references provided in your post Nov 10 2005, 07:11 AM at
Forum: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories
Topic: 4 dimensions plus

especially this reference
Java - higher dimensional visualizations
http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~ishmnn/java/java.html" \l "hyperdimension

Ending with my new favorite quote -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
Good Elf
Hi Gadfly,

Regarding your Hilbert quote...
QUOTE
"Physics is obviously far too difficult to be left to the physicists and mathematicians still think they are God's gift to science."

....They got the "job" because nobody else applied.

As to Mathematicians and Physicists I have an Einstein quote of my own...
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"Physics is obviously far too difficult to be left to the physicists and mathematicians still think they are God's gift to science."

....They got the "job" because nobody else applied.

As to Mathematicians and Physicists I have an Einstein quote of my own...
    We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.  biggrin.gif
        Albert Einstein
        US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)


Cheers
TRoc
Hello GE,


Some answers to your questions. Quote "Have you got a reference to "spontaneous resonance"? " No, sorry about that one.. poor choice of words. I was trying to talk about the "corrective action", or the reduction of "spur" frequencies. Yes, I'm pretty sure that takes place in the primary optical cavity; no, my "labels" are rarely found by "Google". Keep in mind that I am not a Pro, and if I don't have a book open to the right page, I'm probably not going to use the correct, text book terminology.

The process that I speak of is this: nature is lazy; she will take the easiest path, and conserve her energy. She has a lot to do after all!

Almost every experiment I can think of takes place in a "medium" that is defined by the "user". This medium, like everything else, has a resonant frequency. The problem is, that we are not taking this vibration into account as part of the process that produces the results we then post as "the answer". The laser is, partly anyway, an exception. The optical cavity is "the 3rd vibration", or the medium, and it is part of the solution. Most often, I believe, the geometry of the medium IS the largest wavelength. A laser, "by definition", is monochromatic; by "engineering reality", it is NOT monochromatic. There are other, albeit very close, frequencies present. They must be removed in order to achieve the desired result. By re-passing the "wave" through the cavity repeatedly, these "spur" (or beat) frequencies are removed; by my way of thinking, they are "absorbed" into the primary frequency by the process I mentioned before: it is the path of least Resistance because there is less "pressure" in the longer W. (or larger bubble). Often, a filter is employed at the end of this process, because there are SO many photons in a very SMALL area, and without a lot of TIME to achieve the monochromatic wave.

I can give a more mathematical description of the laser, and other vibrations too. I am out of time now. Bringing gravity into this is also possible, I believe. You asked "How do you inflate the large voids with the lowest energy oscillations?", and I reply: the lowest energy oscillations ALREADY have control over the LARGEST area, by the "primary mode" of the defined area. You also mentioned "Gravity waves in "Space-time" could only occur it there were massive oscillations in mass.", but I reason that this is only an EXPERIMENTAL view; in other words, the time frame for "viewing" the result is fixed arbitrarily. In free space, these waves already existed before the experiment, and continue after it is over. Therefore, they were PART of the experiment, yet "unaccounted for". IF they are dominate by the reason I gave, then they are already part of the vibrations that we are using to detect gravity, and so, "not detectable" by that means. We must use some form of "triangulation" to INDIRECTLY detect gravity, because it (the longest wave) is already "inside" whatever atoms we throw together and call "the detector". In effect, it has already been "measured".

more later...


TRoc

TRoc
GE,


As to the difficulty of measuring gravity (within a gravitational field), here is an unrelated quote. Change "EF" to "gravity", and my point is shown.

".. Breit-Wigner representations, in turn, are universal in the sense that they have been proven to be valid for describing various wave-scattering processes spanning the energy range from the microwave regime [6] in to the many-MeV collisions of nuclear physics [3]. The question whether for such a process the resonance parameters are in accordance with Ericson’s statistical assumptions is much more subtle and interesting. From the experimental point of view, a direct answer is impossible because the strong overlapping of resonances and their interference precludes the possibility of extracting any detailed information about the resonance parameters from measured data. EF can therefore be measured only in the sense that the experimental excitation function is consistent with Ericson’s results,.." (from the thread "Erickson fluctuation", quantum mech., if you're interested)


So, there is one of the difficulties. Another one, in my thoughts, is the apparent change in direction due to size relativity. What do I mean by that? Well, if I can explain it adequately, we will really get to the heart of "the nature of electricity & magnetism", and hopefully, gravity as well.

We have a consistent clue: the 90 degree relationship of E & M. I'm going to go way off the beaten path here, so please bear with me. We view EM waves as a "horizontal" phenomenon: the cycles are so small, relative to us (in the 1 to 2 meter size) that they move in a straight line, and vibrate at right angles to the apparent direction. What happens at the "bottom" of the EM spectrum? At around ~15,000hz, radio waves become "ineffective". As far as I know, this is explained ONLY in terms of the resonant cavity we find ourselves in: the atmosphere. In my previous post, I talked about "the 3rd vibration", or the medium, and its' effect on observed phenomena between "sender and receiver". Another difficulty in Science, is the transition from "micro" to "macro", and this is, to me, a size relativity issue. Look at how ELF waves are received: on the horizontal versus the standard "vertical" antenna. Also look at the present description of sound wave propagation: "vertical" (longitudinal) waves, oscillating with/against the apparent direction. (creating alternating bands of "high pressure"/ "low pressure")

Here I am going to ask you to entertain the idea of a Unified Theory of Vibration, where dualistic entities are One. Being in "the middle" of dualistic properties, we can only view these waves as different, even opposite. The much smaller vibrations appear to come from a plane horizontal to us; the much larger vibrations appear to come from a plane parallel to us. (from ABOVE us, downward) Looking at the equipment use for submarine communication, volcanic and earthquake monitoring, and the polar stations checking for deviations in our Schuman resonance will confirm this ILLUSION. They are using magnetic field shifts (or velocity changes caused by the pressure "nodes"); the "1 sec/ hz." system must remain the same, so DISTANCE parameters are used, rather than TIME.

In a closed Universe, we should assume that everything in it, if derived from a common source, will have many similarities. This includes US, and our perceptive abilities. The only other "phenomenon" we can compare the ELF waves to is SOUND waves; the frequencies are in the identical range. At the same "break" line around 15k - 20k Hz., we find our human abilities dampened; we no longer hear those waves (or can make them). Is this a protection mechanism? Look at the cavitational collapse in sonoluminescence, or ultrasound. These are SOUND waves, yet at higher, more energetic frequencies, which we wouldn't want floating around in typical conversations. In the "Mathematical implications.. TOE" thread, my "resonant matrix" can display this for you, and give an intuitive understanding.

I'm out of time... more later wink.gif


TRoc
TRoc
GE & Gadfly,


Hopefully, you are still bearing with me.

From my last post, in summary, I am trying to make the case for things that APPEAR to be separate, actually being DUALISTIC. Just two versions of the same thing. I think the case for ELF/Sound vibrations is there, although, I'm sure it can be done better than I have done so far.

From the "SIGNAL PROCESSING & SIMULATION NEWSLETTER", I see that "j" (sqrt -1) results in a 90 degree phase shift. From our perspective, we are perpendicular to the plane of the Earth, so measurements made here parallel to the Earths' plane, appear "horizontal", and the measurements 90 deg. to the Earth appear "vertical". This represents a 90 deg. shift. (enough to "observe" the opposing duality?) From my "resonant matrix", the CENTER line represents a shift between the dualities of frequency and wavelength, yet it is not where "our numbers" break to negative, where you would expect, it is at the equivalent of 90.6 degrees! (1/4 of total "circle")

Also from that link: "The difficulty is that frequency is really a two dimensional concept but is often seen only as one. Two dimensions are needed to describe a frequency, its cycles per second and its direction of rotation. Historically we have always talked of frequency as a physical quality of a wave. Spectrum analyzers and other electrical measuring devices are one dimensional as well which limits our understanding of the general concept of frequency.

The general concept of frequency can be written as follows (no copy)

We can define frequency as the rate of change of phase over time. So a + rotation over half second means the frequency is 2. And here we see that if phase rotates around counter-clockwise, then we have the definition of positive frequency and when it goes the other way then it is negative. A - rotation over half second means the frequency is -2.

Velocity or speed which we also tend to think of as a scalar has a similar confusing aspect. We can talk about 60 miles per hour and this makes perfect sense. But what does –60 miles per hour mean? Mathematically it is a perfectly OK construct. It just means same speed but going backwards. The concept of negative frequency is just as simple as that."

From the "Phasor Diagrams" link, I see the value of a phasor: "to reduce AC Circuit problems to simple, if often tedious, vector addition and subtraction problems and provide a nice graphical way of thinking of the solution."

My analogy above could be stated as a difference in phasor angles; can the same be said of our models for electricity and magnetism?


The next free time I get, I will show the "math" of long wave dominance in resonant (all) situations.


TRoc


Good Elf
Hi TRoc and Gadfly,

No worry I am still following. I see that you have latched onto the complex plane. What you are saying there is interesting and I would like to carry this further. The complex plane (to me) does not rotate from one orthogonal direction to the next. A repeated complex operation in that definition would rotate through all three directions of x, y and z. This does not capture the "spirit" of what complex numbers are all about... especially with electro-magnetics. Consider those three basis vectors and three orthogonal (imaginary) directions to each of these individual real directions, each pair forming a single complex plane with one axis a real that we can see and the other perpendicular to our "flatland" of three space. This would make six dimensions in all.

(ReX, ImX, ReY, ImY, ReZ, ImZ) where each pair define a plane... one axis is along each of our real directions respectively. These make up two sets... Re(X,Y,Z) and Im(X,Y,Z).

Considering that we can only see in the three real directions and the other three imaginary directions "project" their complex components onto the real axis as a real component of the complex direction along the real axis. Consider just one of these three planes... the real x axis and the imaginary x axis. Imagine a line segment of unit length whose origin is the point (Re, Im) = (0,0) in this plane (X plane) and the initial position of this line segment's end point is along the real axis as (1,0). Lets say it is free to move in the complex X plane in a polar rotation anticlockwise pi radians per second (180 degrees per second). The real x coordinate will take values euser posted imageuser posted image where user posted image is the angle in radians. As this value in the real axis goes from the initial zero radians to user posted image/2 the projected length along the real axis goes from 1 to zero. At exactly the same instants in time the projection of the line segment from along the imaginary direction goes from a value of (0,0) to a value of (0,1) during this rotation of pi/2 radians. That is values of zero to 1.

What we have is in the real plane the line segments length is sine user posted image while the complex plane's (imaginary) line segment takes the values of cosine user posted image.

The view is that this has no effect on any Y or Z coordinates (imaginary or otherwise). In this view of the "world" if I held a three dimensional ordinary cube in my fingers and confined rotations to the three planes XY, YZ and ZX nothing would be noticed out of the ordinary (this is all we can conventionally do anyway). However if instead of rotating this "ordinary" cube in those three planes... I held it steady in those three planes and rotated it in ImXY, ImYZ and ImZX planes only... I could make it completely vanish to a point by rotating it through pi/2 radians in all three planes. This is the "spirit" of complex numbers when we deal with electro-magnetics and a single complex plane where we can rotate through 2user posted image radians .... the impedance having values positive and negative values along the real axis (Re +X to Re -X) and capacitance and inductance in the imaginary directions (Im +X and Im -X) . Also do not feel that you need to be confined to just 2user posted image radians.... any and continuous rotation is possible through any angle and this translates to "frequency". There is a real difference between capacitance and inductance in the "real" world... as they represent "electric" and "magnetic" directions. In electromagnetic calculations this is quite prosaic but because we cannot rotate matter into those directions we are unable to appreciate that phenomena as a rotation. You are seeing only one component of it here previous post.. see animation... the other orthogonal component is in the orthogonal plane. All three orthogonal imaginary directions form a "set" of three "imaginary" axes that would be a "dual" of the first three real axes. I hate the words "real" and "imaginary" since they infer too much (nothing imaginary about them). It is much better to refer to three complex planes rather than real and imaginary axes. These form a "dual" space equivalent in other respects to our space but because of the relationships with coordinates produce different "effects" in our space as "projections". In nine spatial dimensions there would be a third space which is "dual" with the other two. If there were only nine spatial dimensions this forms a three-tuple of three dimensional spaces (plus time) only one of which we are aware of at any time and the other two would appear as "projections" according to the schema I have outlined above.

I would also point out these other two spaces form a six dimensional space that I often refer to as "Uberspace" but intrinsically it is similar to ordinary three space (or at least three dimensional "slices" are similar). Simple rotations as described above will not rotate any object in our space of three dimensions into any of these other "duals" because these other spaces are "bound" on the edge of the light cone. Only light can communicate on this boundary (being massless). This is Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity and it connects "Time" in a special way with such rotations.

PS: The other way to deal with these six dimensions is to see them as three complex two dimensional planes each of two complex directions neither of them being any of our Re X, Re Y, Re Z directions. I have discussed at length the problem of mass and it's effect on this schema. We are able to see the effects on electromagnetism because of it's privileged velocity of © that is the "shadows on the wall of space-time" of the electric and magnetic fields. I would also point out that other objects in our Universe also exhibit macroscopic electromagnetic effects from the "Uberspace" through objects having permanent magnetic and electric fields and displaying those "forces" due to so called virtual photons (never seen but needed to simply fulfill a "need").

As I have previously indicated "acceleration" is identical to gravity in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation and I believe the exercise of "higher dimensional"... unseen force is also related to "intrinsic mass" This is a connection the object has with the higher dimensions. There is the other point that I have not stressed here is the difference between "Uberspace" and "Space-time"... in that those six dimensions that are not "inflated" with spin energy... in the way our stressed Universe is... they are "vestigial" because no matter exist in them anymore through quantum demolition of the mass states (symmetry breaking) early in the evolution of the Universe resulting in all the mass "living" in the 3D + T "Space-time" and leaving the "Uberspace" mostly unused. That is other than for massless or near-massless quantum activity of photons or suitably small and relativistically traveling "de Broglie" particles. This is where strings can easily deform the geometry whereas strings may be active in "Space-time" but because of the immense "tension" force... the quanta were forced to be "infinitesimal" but exceedingly energetic. In the early evolution of the Universe there may have been periods where these bubbles were like the ones in the current "Uberspace" and there were even more dimensions than the present nine spatial ones... that distributed these energies more uniformly. I actually think "Space-time" is probably not quantized for this very reason since no process has ever been energetic enough to quantize "Space-time" since the period of early inflation. The result of this is early on in the Universe when those quantum demolition events were occurring the "Space-time Bubbles" collected under the influence of the vast vacuum energy into a continuum... and that resulted in the continuum we are seeing now (all the Planck "bubbles" could have coalesced into Universes and even "matter") . This is a sort of "Coca-Cola" view of the "Space-time Continuum"... where the energetic "fizz" at Planck Length has now gone "flat"... he he he! Remember the energy according to some calculations of this vacuum state in one "empty" glass full of that "Space-time" vacuum is equal to a sphere the radius of the Earth's orbit around the Sun filled with (non-carbonated) water and converted entirely to energy. The quantum phenomena are now confined to the lower energy and "discontinuous" realm of the "Uberspace". There are your 10 dimensions and why they exist and are needed in a full description of our reality. I hope this is making some kind of sense to you.

Your comments...

Cheers
TRoc
GE,


Well, I was worried that you might not WANT to follow those ideas, but I see the similarities. Actually, after that last post, I have a better conceptual understanding of your "Uberspace". I think, in the long run, either you will convince me of the necessity for such "complex" quantitative dimensions, or I will convince you of a simpler way. Not that there will be the ultimate "right/wrong", just Occam's' razor.

In some ways, I think it can be reduced to one dimension that is continually "split into two" (through dualistic perspectives) until you get 10. For now, I will just show you another "neat trick" I have come up with.


Some of this idea is complete, and thoroughly covers the concept of large wavelength "dominance". This could be stated in several different ways: a "relaxing" of the higher pressure spheres; energetic "contraction"; or a "laziness" that wants to use as little energy as possible (also efficient, conservative).

The first level is "simple". Resonance occurs between 2 identical frequencies: 1 electron gets pumped up, and becomes a sender. The receiving electron (same f.) then gets pumped up by an equal amount of energy, and then will repeat the process. As long as no other frequencies are involved, there is no "beat frequency" (BF) to take energy out of this "system". With 2 tuning forks, the medium (3rd vibration) is a BF, and takes the energy out of the system (2 resonant parties).

At this point, a note on vibration in space. Traditionally, we want to see a medium for a wave. We have to keep in mind that Einstein's photon has never been seen. The debate for an ether medium still rages on. The BF of the "vacuum" would appear to be zero, but what is a vacuum outside of the lab? At what point in space can we reduce the relationship to 2 parties? This is a perspective problem. The BF of space is ALREADY in the electron. This could be stated as an equilibrium state, but NOT zero. It is a partial view (90 deg?) of a circle; it is watching the movie, but not seeing the previews, or the credits. Details like the plot and the stars (WHAT) will have to be seen as they happen; details like the producer and director (WHY, HOW) will not be perceived.

The fact is, that everything in space is already connected and communicating before we ever decide to set up an experiment, and measure something. How else do you explain EPR, the infinite distance of gravity, charge, etc? Information has a speed limit of ©, but the timer used to clock this has a beginning that is always "new" to us, and an end that is © time away. The vibrational relationships of all the particles in the universe are OLD to us; their beginning was long before our consciousness. A good analogy is "knowledge": if I ask you a question that you already know the answer to, you respond "instantly; if I give you an open book test and ask a question that you don't know, your answer will take some time. The particles of the universe have been communicating for billions of years, and know the answer to any "test" that we throw out there.

Consider the "equation of the cosmos" from Milo Wolff:

ro^2 = R2/3N

R = 10^26 meters (size of universe), N = 10^80 particles in universe,
ro = 6 x 10^-15 meters
very near to the classical size of the electron (e^2/mc^2 = 2.8^-15m)


So, how does frequency respond to a 3rd (or more) vibration? Well, vibration is as vibration does. With 2 frequencies, you get a BF; a BF is just another vibration. A BF will not last as long as either original vibration, it FADES with time (as its' energy is absorbed into the lower frequency). But it would still register with any technology designed for that frequency range. The power of the "triad" is very important in many things, even if the 3rd part is just a container, vessel, medium, etc.

Are there other ways for resonance to occur besides 2 equal frequencies? Two party resonance can be stated as a zero BF. ( F1-F2=0 ) I write it this way, with an example Hz, to avoid confusion, and the temptation to "reduce" the formula later:

[ 392MHz \/ 392MHz ]
[..............0Hz..............] BF=0, 392MHz-0MHz=392MHz (resonance w/ Tonic)

Now I will give you 3 frequencies, and produce the same effect:

[........./````196MHz````\...........] BF=196
[ 392MHz \/ 494MHz \/ 588MHz ]....BF=102
[.........102MHz......94MHz...........] BF= 94 ; Beat Sum (BS) = 392MHz (resonance w/ Tonic)

Copyright 2004 Thomas Roccetta

(not the way it looks on paper, but the best I can do here with a keyboard)

In this case, the 3 frequencies become 6 vibrations, but reduce to 1, superimposed, frequency, that was "dominated" by the original longest wavelength (the Tonic). There is no limit to the number of vibrations that can combine in this way, however, using quantum resonance (from my matrix), you find that there is a limit to how many resonant frequencies can symmetrically exist between N and 2N. So, I am deducing that all of the vibrating particles in the universe will "settle" down to one, background equilibrium wavelength/frequency, and that would be termed as "gravity", and act as a "fabric" medium for all subsequent energy exchanges to take place in. The values between N and 2N that are not resonant (produce a BS = Tonic) create a "charge" against this "account", and create the dualistic properties of attraction and repulsion (either adding to, or subtracting from the Tonic), as well as stable orbits for bodies under that influence (force).

There is more to be said about this theory, but it is late my friend.


TRoc

Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

I have heard of the name of Wolf before. I did not know of his work... I have Googled some small idea of his theories. I have this "simple" explanation here.
WSM Cosmology: Equation of the Cosmos
Forgive me if I miss the point from this excerpt. Wolf maintains that the Hubble Shift is not due to Doppler Frequency shifts due to spreading from the Big Bang. The article makes it difficult to analyze this fully because it makes a few "bland" statements. First he asserts that Mach's Principle must indeed be true... that the distant parts of the Universe is responsible for the Mass in the Universe. I would not dispute this since it is my conviction that our "marble Universe" is spinning in six "Uberspace Dimensions" and at it's fringe is traveling at the speed of light ©. It can accomplish this "trick" because it is a ten dimensional Universe... six of these contribute the Uberspace. As I have said elsewhere I believe that the property of mass is due to this "intrinsic" spin of he Universe.

Because the Universe (the self contained internal system) is bodily spinning and it's radius is at least 15 Billion light years across (possibly more) that backdrop of the Universe would need to rotate only once every 50 Billion Years and this would be sufficient to cause the "edge" to be traveling at the speed of light. The reason why there is no "carousel" effect is because it is bodily being spun in three planes simultaneously. That is aside from any spin in the "bulk" 3D + T of the Universe.

Lets ignore any spin in that for the moment. Every dimensionally defined body inside our Universe has exactly the same spin but the radius of these bodies will lead to a different frequency of rotation. If you "launch a "brane" such as a photon it will exhibit some of this spin depending on the intrinsic symmetry of the photon. The velocity of the photon and it's frequency define it's spin quanta. A sub-atomic particle has a quantum spin such that the periphery is spinning at the speed of light too. The frequency of that spin determined by an external observer would be very high if the geometry is such that it's size was very small. Is this spin like flat spin? Not in the least. For a start the "edge of that Universe" is as close as the nose on your face. You do not need to look into the distance to notice that fact since all atomic and sub-atomic particle has this higher dimensional spin.

Every point in the Universe is involved in this six dimensional spin and this is inflating our Universe with spin energy... only this inflation is uniform throughout the entire bulk and every particle distributed in the Universe. The "hyper-surface" of our Universe is "everywhere" and it is responsible for closing off the Universe. This spin energy is inflating the Universe (every point is moving away from every other point... on the whole) but the external periphery (as seen from outside) remains "fixed over time. So internally, within our Universe, the spin energy is still inflating into "nothing". As the internal energy continually inflates the internal geometry (on the inside the expansion of the Universe continues) the external geometry remains constant, fixed by the speed of light. The internal increasing "radius" of our universe is "fueled" by a spin-down in the "inner shell" of the Universe. The spin energy (Kinetic Energy) converted into potential energy in the gradually increasing internal volume of the Universe.

The question is how long can the Universe continue to expand internally at the expense of the overall spin-energy of the Universe externally? The model I think of is a relativistic but massless "wagon wheel". The "massless" rim spinning at the speed of light. The interior is spinning faster than the rim such that a line drawn through points which were previously on a diameter (spokes) are swept into a sinusoid very much like a Yin-Yang diagram.... sort of like an "S" figure inside the rim. The rim has undergone length contraction and externally is seen as a very small size. The "zone" of the light speed rim extends for much of the radius. Internally the "space" available along the spokes of the wheel extended only a short distance but as the wheel slowed down the distance to the rim appears to be "increasing". The rim remains at the speed of light but the hub is beginning to "track" the rim. At this point the wheel spins as a unit and no further spin-down should occur. Internally the Universe should come to a asymptotically diminishing "halt" in expansion. Will it be followed by a big crunch ... probably not since this inflation is now a stored energy in the system so no "crunch".

The interior has a higher rotational frequency but is at a lower tangential velocity because it is at a lesser radius. at the moment of the big bang the entire particle universe was traveling at the speed of light as a rapidly spinning completely homogeneous light speed "bubble". The center "slowed down" converting some of the tangential velocity into potential energy and inflating the inner space like a bubble. The event horizon then has been progressively moving away from the center ever since in what we call the "Great Expansion". This volume has been on the increase and is vast inflated by spin energy. Externally the Universe has remained a "marble" and externally the velocity remained at the speed of light.

I am sleepy now and also must go to bed... cheers
Guest
Hi TRoc:

I have been considering your comment

QUOTE (TRoc+Posted: Nov 10 2005, 07:22 AM)
In case you make it back before I do, what can you make of "3.86e-6/Pi x wavelength = E (in eV)" from a phasor perspective?

There should be NO problem with Pi, wavelength or eV from a phasor perspective.
I do NOT think that 3.86e-6 would provide any problem, but I do NOT know what this value represents. Could you explain the significance of this value?
Your post of Oct 8 2005, 12:47 AM may provide a clue that I am NOT able to understand.
I did a google search that provided about 91 results including posts to this topic forum.


QUOTE (TRoc+Posted: Nov 12 2005, 01:01 AM)
My analogy above could be stated as a difference in phasor angles; can the same be said of our models for electricity and magnetism?

Perhaps. There may be a [my speculative] link between phasors and Calabi-Yau manifolds.

I know nothing about Breit-Wigner representations. Could you provide an educational website reference about this topic and Erickson fluctuation?

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
Guest
Hi Good Elf and TRoc:

I have noticed that the terms spiral and helix seem to be used as equivalent terms.

Permit me to clarify that while every helix may be a spiral, NOT every spiral is a helix.
Certainly a spiral galaxy does NOT appear to be an helical galaxy.

Consider these definitions.

1 - Google: Definitions of spiral on the Web:

- a plane curve traced by a point circling about the center but at increasing distances from the center
- helix: a curve that lies on the surface of a cylinder or cone and cuts the element at a constant angle
- gyrate: to wind or move in a spiral course; "the muscles and nerves of his fine drawn body were coiling for action"; "black smoke coiling up into the sky"; "the young people gyrated on the dance floor"
- coil: a structure consisting of something wound in a continuous series of loops; "a coil of rope"
- form a spiral; "The path spirals up the mountain"
- flying downward in a helical path with a large radius
- corkscrew: move in a spiral or zigzag course
- coiling: in the shape of a coil
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

2 - In mathematics, a spiral is a curve which turns around some central point or axis, getting progressively closer to or farther from it, depending on which way one follows the curve.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral

3 - A helix, sometimes also called a coil, is a curve for which the tangent makes a constant angle with a fixed line.
The shortest path between two points on a cylinder (one not directly above the other) is a fractional turn of a helix, as can be seen by cutting the cylinder along one of its sides, flattening it out, and noting that a straight line connecting the points becomes helical upon re-wrapping (Steinhaus 1999, p. 229). It is for this reason that squirrels chasing one another up and around tree trunks follow helical paths.
Helices come in enantiomorphous left- (coils counterclockwise as it "goes away") and right-handed forms (coils clockwise).
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Helix.html

There are many other types of spirals, including

1- Archimedean spirals [Fermat's spiral, hyperbolic spiral, lituus]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArchimedeanSpiral.html

2 - Sinusoidal spirals [about 8]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SinusoidalSpiral.html

A reason that the difference may be significant is that the helix is one of only three minimal surface space dividing curves.
1 - The helicoid.
2 - The plane [the helical angle is zero].
3 - Hoffman's minimal surface [a helicoid with a hole, discovered in 1992]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Helicoid.html

[There is the catenoid which with the plane are the only minimal surfaces of revolution.]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Catenoid.html

The helicoid may relate to quantum tunneling often demonstrated with the Schrodinger equation.

Pardon my digression.

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
gadfly
WOW!

Two guest posts without even trying.

I too am only vaguely familiar with Milo Wolff.

QUOTE (TRoc+Posted: Nov 13 2005, 08:36 AM)
... I think it can be reduced to one dimension that is continually "split into two" (through dualistic perspectives) ...

This is consistent with chaos theory now often referred to as bifurcation theory.

A well known example - the helix and double helix world of nucleic acids appears to have an embedded 'this or that' [as opposed to 1 or 0] binary composition:

- DNA or RNA

- PURINE or PYRIMIDINE

Purines
- Adenine [6-amino purine] or Guanine [2-amino-6-oxy purine]
[although sometimes there is
- Hypoxanthine [6-oxy purine] or Xanthine [2,6-dioxy purine]
these latter two compounds thought by some to be evolutionary ancestors]

Pyrimidines
- Uracil [2,4-dioxy pyrimidine] or Thymine [2,4-dioxy-5-methyl pyrimidine] in RNA
- Cytosine [2-oxy-4-amino pyrimidine] or Thymine in DNA
[rarely Orotic acid [2,4-dioxy-6-car boxy pyrimidine] sometimes substituted]

If there is embedded binary at this macro-molecular level, there may be "split into two" at the levl of EM.
[Am I mixing apple with oranges by using such an example?]

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
TRoc
Gadfly,


Don't worry, I knew it was you.

Hopefully, you are still here, and can clarify you statement "Your post of Oct 8 2005, 12:47 AM may provide a clue that I am NOT able to understand.
I did a google search that provided about 91 results including posts to this topic forum."

What word did you search? What "clue" do you refer to?


I am working on a full reply, but it will take some time.


TRoc



TRoc
GE and Gadfly,


On the electron volt from 3.86e-6/Pi x Wavelength equation: I came up with this purely by trial and error, in seeking an easier way to work with the energy in EM waves. I am posting here for a discussion as to its' meaning. I am not sandbagging! I am hoping we could come up with a "why" together.

Gadfly, the only info I have on Ericson Fluctuations (EF) is here. You may have had trouble because of spelling (no "k"). Also, I realize I have used the terms "spiral" and "double helix" too loosely, and will try stop. sad.gif

I am going to purposely hold off on linking with Wolff's' web sight. I really would like to discuss, and receive your input on my "rule" for the triad, and poly-frequency mixing. I think you are both "pro wave" already.

A few "notes" on this equation. It is similar to partial differentials in that you have to perform the operation more than once. Instead of the time derivative (tt), I am using the concept of beat frequency. Then it is taken to "higher order"; in fact, it must be performed for EVERY beat that exists between EVERY frequency. In simple resonance, you have 2 frequencies (f), and 1 BF; taking one step further, you have 3 f 's and 3 BF 's. With 4 f 's, you will need to compute 6 BF 's, and so on. In formula it looks like this (for 3 f 's): ( f1-f2)+(f2-f3)+(f1-f3) = BS . Actually, the subtraction function is not correct, the BF is just the difference between the frequencies (again, I am limited to keyboard symbols). This will be important at the next rule. You can see it is also similar to a wave equation, without the squaring of the sum. Also similar to both aforementioned equations is the "roots"; the reason for the creation of the equation was "musical" in nature. They asked how the form of a vibrating string takes its' shape; I asked how resonance occurs with multiple strings vibrating simultaneously. This same question led me to create the "matrix" of frequencies that can achieve resonance based on our "setting" the base of 1Hz per 1 sec. (link to matrix)

Only specific frequencies will produce this resonance (BS=Tonic), IE. "sub-harmonics". It is also not entirely correct to say that the lowest frequency is the Tonic. The longest wavelength also would have to have the most time to "develop" in order to be the lowest frequency. Therefore, the FIRST (in time) low f will "dominate" over any subsequent, even slightly lower, frequencies. There is a one "octave" limit, IE. f2 and f3 can be 1/2 of their original value, and resonance can still take place, although it is not "pure", or exact. Lastly, an "overtone resonance" can happen with f2 & f3 being double the original value.

From previous example: f1=392, f2=494, f3=588; BS=392
to:
f1=392, f2=247, f3=294; BS=388 (~392)
or
f1=392, f2=988, f3=1176; BS=1568 (2nd harmonic of 392)

This limit is relativistic, in terms of frequency and wavelength. The current view puts time and space together; this puts frequency and wavelength in the same light. Time and distance, from the observer, are inseparable. Therefore, they need not be represented by separate dimensions. The matrix produces the exact visible spectrum in wavelength, and the exact visible spectrum in frequency, from one set of quantum numbers, beginning with the quantity of 1.0, which is where WE set as the beginning for Hz, and the Meter. The time units could be whatever you choose, and you will still get the same results. Resonance can be produced by mass, energy, or distance/size as long as the resulting frequencies are relative to each other.

Now we need to apply this theory to the existing empirical data and see what value it may have.

Break.


TRoc

gadfly
TRoc

My reference to a possible "clue" about nature of ‘3.86e-6’ is from this paragraph

QUOTE (TRoc+Oct 8 2005, 12:47 AM)
The reason I said use "4.135667e-15 for h in eV" was because I was originally talking about 3.86e-6/Pi x wavelength = energy in electron Volts. Not about your last post, which I'm not familiar with. Are you saying that 3.2969 is the new ratio of the radius to the circumference of a spiral? (instead of a circle) An increase of 0.1554 to the ratio? You also said "uncorrected", so I'm not sure.

I thought I may have missed a “clue” from all the numbers listed.

I simply ‘google searched’ the numeric value: 3.86e-6

Results included many assortments of numerical data only. There were many PDF documents. A few interesting examples, apparently non-related items [non PDF] are provided:

1 - AFCS Nature the Signalling Gateway Blast data for AfCS protein A000955 - Signaling Gateway
http://www.signaling-gateway.org/molecule/...last&adv=latest

2 - Modeling approach and rock properties by Hui-Hai Liu, LBNL of Berkeley Lab's Work on the Yucca Mountain Project in Table 1. Rock properties used in the model prediction
http://esd.lbl.gov/NW/Alcove8Niche3/modelingresults.html

3 - Department of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSD) Does Policy Affect Outcomes for Young Children? An Analysis with International Microdata - August 1999
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/p...66/page11.shtml

I also utilized a method discussed in in a Good Elf reference James G. Gilson, Fine Structure Constant from his post of Oct 5 2005, 10:58 AM. The constant alpha equals 1 / 137.
The result is 259,067.3575. This number does NOT seem to have particular significance except for being only 20,000 miles more distant than the moon is to the Earth.

QUOTE (TRoc+Posted: Nov 15 2005, 06:16 AM)
... It is similar to partial differentials in that you have to perform the operation more than once ...

This suggests some sort of iterative process which can be very difficult and time consuming in trying to find the best method for solution. Helpful references may be

1 - An overview of Iterative Methods from netlib of Computer Science Dept, Univ. Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
http://netlib2.cs.utk.edu/linalg/html_templates/node9.html

Contacts for practical assistance may include:
2 - Iterative Template Library (ITL) from Open Systems Lab (OSL), one of the Pervasive Technology Laboratories at Indiana University.
http://www.osl.iu.edu/research/itl/

3 - IML++ is a C++ templated library of modern iterative methods for solving both symmetric and nonsymmetric linear systems of equations from the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
http://math.nist.gov/iml++/

I would say that I am "pro wave" but do recognize that a matrix approach will also work. However the matrix approach is more difficult than a wave approach.

I also suspect that waves may be related to “bubbles”. Consider the helical diagram in the Good Elf post of Nov 10 2005, 12:41 AM. With a little imagination this forms a virtual cylinder. With a little more imagination this can become a virtual bubble if the wave is NOT continuous due to a vibration or a pulse.

QUOTE (TRoc+Posted: Nov 15 2005, 06:16 AM)
... the reason for the creation of the equation was "musical" in nature ...

Two quick reference to music and the helix:

1 - The Helix Circle Sound - “We have used notes on the surface of the helix to produce a ‘helix circle sound’ that goes ‘up’ the chroma dimension around the pitch helix forever but returns to its starting point each time around.” from MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit Cambridge, England.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/cnbh/web2005/...pitch_helix.htm

2 - Wave, Sound, and Music from - “One of the most characteristic features of the quantum theory is the wave-particle duality, i.e., the ability of matter or light quanta to demonstrate the wave-like property of interference (such as standing wave), and yet to appear subsequently in the form of localizable particles, even after such interference has taken place. Atomic and molecular theory depends on the computation of probability wave.” from the unknown author of this website self-described as “I am a physicist in retirement.”
http://universe-review.ca/R12-03-wave.htm

Thanks for the reference to Ericson Fluctuations (EF). I am beginning to speculate that the ‘quantum scattering’ discussed in this article may have some relation to Rayleigh and other scattering discussed in
Forum: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories
Topic: What is it about matter that slows light?, The EM field effect

QUOTE (Montec+ Posted: Nov 9 2005, 06:28 PM )
Whatever theory that tries to explain light and matter interaction must include :
Brillouin scattering
Rayleigh Scattering
Mie Scattering
Ramon Scattering
Compton Scattering
A clue to theory is that Rayleigh Scattering affects higher frequencies more than lower frequencies just like Dispersion in optics.

Note - Ramon was a typo for Raman.

Time to stop.

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
Good Elf
Hi TRoc and gadfly,

I have been a little lost of late with this thread. Are you saying that "gravity" is related to some "harmonic resonance" in the Universe? I might have that reference of Wolf's work in error... Wolf's Equation of the Universe to me is "apparently" very simple. That does not necessarily mean that I fully understand it. The reference I used is very "superficial". I think that the geometry of our Universe is indeed inflated by various "modes" of a string. To my way of thinking these modes would predominantly be spin modes not longitudinal. I am listening on this one. Any strings will be on the "surface" of this Universe. Of course I am using this idea in total hypothetical case here since I can't see these "vibrations". The next point is we are in the rest frame of our Universe. Presumably these relativistic modes might vanish in our frame since these vibrations are on the edge of the light cone. The big empty universe we are seeing (urr... not seeing).... the bosonic superstring.... we are on the interior of the envelope and in the nodal region. This nodal region probably stretches almost all the way to the hypothetical edge of the Universe where it's geometry suddenly changes. Matter will not be able to see what is going on there because "we" have mass. Only light can go there.

Let's just hypothesize about that... The "spun down" Universe creates a cavity inside a closed nodal space, large to our way of understanding, but leaves a rim which is moving/vibrating at the speed of light in six dimensions in Uberspace (there may also be a flat spin in space-time too). No material particle can approach that rim. What I suspect is this if you had a "rocket" with the ability to accelerate as much as you want... to approach this region you would need to undergo "infinite" acceleration... even if your mass was one gram, it would not be possible to go there. Brute force cannot break out of this space. Otherwise the internal geometry of "space-time" is such that it "loops around" endlessly with a twist. In higher dimensions in "Uberspace" solitons or instantons can be launched on the "surface" of "Space-time" as higher dimensional objects of six dimensions... the string "branes" (because they are massless). These are the quanta and they will only stay in that state as long as they do not undergo quantum demolition and "precipitate" back into "space-time" as a particle interaction with a suitable "dimensional cavity".

I may have "transgressed" and called a "coil" or a helix a spiral .... he he he! sorry about that. biggrin.gif I would like to add the fact that the wavefronts of electromagnetism expand "rapidly" to encompass the "universe" if unrestrained by interaction. I have used the analogy (either here or elsewhere) of the way a shadow behaves on the surface of a darkly lit street with only one high source of concentrated light. As the angle between the source and the surface of the projection approach a tangent the shadow grows anomalously large. This is the inverse square law of propagation. The "source" of the shadow remains the same. It is an analogy and should not be stressed too much but consider the wavefronts of the photons on the surface of space-time being a projection from the "Uberspace"... as they spread from the source they appear to expand without limit. Look at that animation of a section through a dipole emitter (earlier... see link here). A photon traveling for a million years in space will "cover" a significant region "on the surface of space-time" but the instant it interacts it is only a single tiny photon "speck" somewhere out there a million light years away.... it is "very small". This is the optical distortion of the projection as an inverse square law "propagation". The longer a photon moves away from it's source of origin in 3D + T space-time, this optical effect will be observed "here" in "flatland".

TRoc... I have seen your equation again and I am truly mystified. I cannot derive it. You will need to point out to me the significance of that somehow. I am still not following there.

Cheers
gadfly
Hi Good Elf:

There is an interesting article Knotty Calculations: A quantum version of braids could lay the groundwork for tomorrow's computers by Erica Klarreich in Science News from 22 FEB 2003.
It may relate to “nodal space“ in your post of Nov 16 2005, 07:15 AM.

This discusses the Jones polynomial for complicated knots. In this article she refers to Edward Witten describing a “physical system that should calculate information about the Jones polynomial during the course of its regularly scheduled activities“.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030222/bob11.asp

Indeed, your quote “Are you saying that "gravity" is related to some "harmonic resonance" in the Universe?” may be a correct perspective, but I really do NOT know this. However the Schrodinger and phasor equations are complex harmonic oscillators.

Did you or TRoc happen to see PBS and NOVA developed a TV program about Isaac Newton [1643-1727] entitled Newton's Dark Secrets. A companion website is available.
“The transcript of the television program is usually available one to three weeks after the original broadcast date.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/

Although Newton was unaware of either relativity or quantum mechanics, his insights remain the foundation of [classical] mechanics and have historical interest.

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
TRoc
GE,


Can you explain what you are mystified about? The solution? When you say you can not derive it, do you mean by another equation, or that you can not find any info on it, or?


TRoc

TRoc
GE,


Some comments on your last post.

"Are you saying that "gravity" is related to some "harmonic resonance" in the Universe?" Yes, I am saying that; let us go one step at a time though, because you need to see the basis first.

You commented that Wolff's equation was simple; I would assume you think the same of mine. They are indeed simple, and it is those kind of ideas that will prove to be underlying causation for the complex, "top down" view, that Science has today.

"To my way of thinking these modes would predominantly be spin modes not longitudinal." I tried to make the case for the idea that these things are dualistic components of vibration. That from one perspective (observer), they are one thing, and from another perspective, they are the opposite. In attempting to unify dualistic ideas, one must entertain the concept that there is a preferred orientation and perspective in the Universe; I believe that you must be able to see the opposites as One, and not separate. ("heads" and "tails" become "coins")

"These are the quanta and they will only stay in that state as long as they do not undergo quantum demolition and "precipitate" back into "space-time" as a particle interaction with a suitable "dimensional cavity"." I'm not sure if you are commenting on what I said, or if this is your perspective. Either way, your "quantum demolition" and "precipitation back into space-time" would be my absorption into the longer wave; energy conservation by the least resistant path.


I will offer more explanation and discussion.


TRoc

TRoc
Gadfly (& GE),


Thanks for more great links Gadfly. I would like to comment on some of them.

On The Helix Circle Sound: this very same approach led me to relate the "cycle" of a wave, and the "octave" (quantities between "resonance"). Also, on looking at the "form" of vibration in something different than the traditional 2D, oscilloscope perspective. This was without the formalism of things like "phasors" and radians.

From the Wave, Sound, and Music site: "Elementary particle theory starts from a wave equation. The concepts of standing wave and Fourier superposition are fundamental to quantum theory. Therefore, an understanding of wave is one of the pre-requisites for the studying of modern physics." I am taking a new look at these things, which is much simpler. Standing waves are simple resonant quantities (frequency) within their boundaries, or medium; Fourier superposition is the 2D analysis of the FORM of poly-frequency mixing, whereas I am giving the simple mathematical results, in terms of frequency.

"When a medium, whether gas, liquid, or solid, is disturbed, the disturbance moves out in all directions until it encounters a boundary at which point it will either be absorbed, reflected, or refracted depending on the nature of the discontinuity. In reality, the wave would fade away gradually by damping in the medium." To this, I am adding "space" as another medium; one without any dampening effect (by permittivity & permeability of the "preferred orientation", which has 90 deg lines).

"The velocity v is related to the tension T and mass density u (per unit length) of the medium by yet another formula:

v = ( T / u )1/2, ---------- (3)

which implies that the wave moves faster when the tension of the medium is high and the density is low." Maximum wave speed would be in the medium with the highest tension, and the lowest density. This describes a vacuum, or space, and the resulting speed of light (frequencies higher than 17~20kHz).

In the varying pressure (tension duality; think contract vs. expand) layers of our atmosphere (medium), boundary conditions are created. Each layer has a different molecular make up; they have random movement, and they are affected by heat. The dampening under these conditions is severe. Wave speed is at a natural minimum, the speed of sound (which is also oscillating against our perceived direction 1/2 of the time it travels, and then meeting a boundary, losing energy, and changing spin; further reducing the wave speed) for frequencies below 17~20kHz.

Also for these lower frequencies, you have the option of keeping the pressure or tension relatively equal (to the atmosphere), while changing the density (and ordered structure vs. random movement). Now the wave speed increases (acceleration). Crystals and metal are prime examples of mediums that accelerate the vibration, and result in potential or charge. Our household electricity, at 60Hz, prefers to move towards the dominant, lower frequency of the ~7.5Hz Schuman resonance of the Earths' surface (exactly 3 octaves lower).

"If the vibrating string is attached to a rigid support at the other end, the traveling wave will be reflected and will begin to travel back toward the driven end." The same can be said for the even dispersion of heat. A frequency of n meets a fixed boundary ( f=0), and all of the frequency is reflected (n-0=n), creating a standing wave with even crests between boundaries. "These regular wave patterns are called standing waves as shown in Figure 04. This condition is sometimes called resonance."

"The lowest frequency at which a standing wave can be set up is called the fundamental frequency.. " ( fundamental=tonic ) "Usually, the dominant standing wave is the fundamental.." (longest wave dominant)

"Since Eq.(4a) is a linear differential equation, the sum of the separate solutions is also a solution. Thus, superposition of the the fundamental and harmonics can generate different kind of waveform as shown in Figure 05. Mathematically, it is expressed by the Fourier series.." Now we have a more simple mathematical representation for this combing of frequencies.

"The wave moves along a string is called transverse wave since the vibration is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The electromagnetic waves and the ripples in a pond are another examples. Electromagnetic waves are generated by acceleration of electric charges such as in lightning, hot filament, electrical circuit, etc." So, here we see a string movement (transverse wave) creating a longitudinal sound wave. Yet another reason to consider vibrations as a whole, rather than the compartmentalized version we now have.

"Figure 07b shows the radiation pattern for charge accelerated in its direction of motion. The "8" shape pattern (a no hole doughnut in 3 dimension) is emitted at low velocity, while the lobes (a thick cone in 3 dimension) are generated at speed close to the velocity of light." Again, perceived direction parallel to our line of sight moving at maximum velocity, and that moving perpendicular to us, moving at low speeds.

The paper then goes into polarization, which is another facet that can be looked at freshly with the concept of a "continuous numerical representation (wavelength through frequency) with quantum resonant steps". This will give insight to the current one dimensional electromagnetic spectrum that excludes the possibility of the color (frequency) of magenta light, while the current rules for color/frequency mixing include this color as a "fundamental" component of the "subtractive" TRIAD. The same Vibrational Mixing Equation can put mathematics into color and music, both overlooked areas because they are "Arts", and not Science. When you throw in the EM spectrum, you then can have a complete theory.


More later..


TRoc

TRoc
GE and Gadfly,


Some comments on the PBS special on Newton. (I didn't watch it, but read the transcripts) Especially relevant to our conversation is the included speech by Einstein at Newtons 200th "death anniversary". What better 2 party discussion for a review of Science as it stands, how it got there, and how we can change it for the better.

"..way of handling data,.. ..example, if you're an astronomer and you observe the position of a star and you observe the position of a star again, you're going to get different numbers every time because people aren't perfect. Well, what do you do with all those different numbers? Nowadays, really since the end of the 18th century, you take what's called an average. You put them all together with this mathematical procedure."
300 years ago, we didn't have the technology to produce very accurate, and consistent data. The "averaging" method worked around this very well. Really, the same can be said up to Einsteins' time. Now we have the technology, and as the curve of our ability has risen, the accuracy of our models has fallen. The more we have learned in precise terms, the more flaws have become apparent. Generalisations can work good enough, but they can not take us all the way to "the beginning"; for that we need absolute accuracy. Pythagoras' simple ratios worked to explain the "harmonies" of "pleasing tones" for 2000+ years; no one has came up with a better reason until now.

The frequency of a "single photon" is a single frequency (monochromatic). Any series of "photons" (photoelectrons) coming from the same "body" (electron, molecule, etc.) during the same experiment, will be phase related. This will produce EPR; this will produce the build up, over time, of the diffraction pattern of the 2 slit experiment, even when fired "one at a time". The "pulse action" of one-at-a-time photons is reproducing the phase pattern on the screen. In order to see "photon-photon" relationships, they must be produced independently of each other, and absolutely monochromatic. Three quantities (lengths) of different mass, under different tensions, will produce 3 independent, single frequency vibrations. Then the simple mathematical relationship can be seen. If they are "complex" frequencies, they will still relate, but we are not seeing the "fundamental" process.

"His techniques of working on these things were all the same. There was also an underlying belief that all of these things must be connected, because the world was, after all, created by God. God is not irrational. There had to be a logic underlying all of these things. " He found "an approximation" to this; but ultimately, without better technology, and the data it produces, was not able to include gravity into "the big picture".

"..anybody in the late 17th century who was capable of reasoning at that level (and there weren't many but there were several) would have recognized the brilliance of what he had done, even though they might quarrel with the basis of the mechanics underlying it, as both [the Dutch mathematician Christiaan] Huygens and [the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried] Leibniz, his two greatest contemporaries, did. " A good time to point out that Huygens' "unified wave front" from independant wave sources is saying that, in the end, the longest wave wins; all energy will be spread around the entire allowed area. He did not have precise frequency readings to allow him to build a math that would back this up. (we do)

"Of course, since really the 1920s and 1930s, we have had an image of a certain basic divide in science—well, really in physics—between what we call the classical world and the quantum world. Interestingly enough, the classical world, if you ask physicists today, usually includes relativity, and the quantum, or non-classical world, is about the strange behavior of particles. "

"On the other hand, it is also the case, as historians of relativity will tell you—especially general relativity, the theory of gravity—that one of the most important factors in what lead to the particular form of general relativity that Einstein produced was the necessity of figuring out how to get Newton's world out of it."

Einstein said we can view acceleration and gravity as indistinguishable to an observer in the system. I am saying that the distance between 2 masses, and the resonant wavelength that exists between 2 masses, are indistinguishable. Real measurements, with "the ruler", are the realm for us human folk. All distances measured in the micro or macro world is done with vibration; gravity causes the distance between 2 masses to lessen, which lowers the wavelength, or distance measured with vibration. The causation is dualistic: gravity is not a force that happens to masses, it is the fundamental conservation of energy that creates lowers wavelengths, which, in a vibrational measurement, appears as a shorter distance. At certain resonant distances from a large mass (compared to the others in the system), you have "bands" that, when mixed with the "tonic", created the complex resonance I have described; these we call "stable orbits", and would include atoms and planets. In some cases, if these bodies are brought together, you get a zero BF, and another stable "band"; not, as predicted by "fields", infinite charge.

"When we step back and look at Newton's universe from afar, what is it, exactly, that we see? According to the Principia, we peer into a seemingly endless void of which only a tiny part is occupied by material bodies moving through the boundless and bottomless abyss. Newton's followers would liken it to a colossal machine, much like the clocks located on the faces of medieval buildings. All motions are reduced to mechanical laws, a universe where human beings and their world of the senses have no effect. Yet for all its lack of feeling, it is a realm of precise, harmonious, and rational principles. Mathematical laws bind each particle of matter to every other particle, barring the gate to disorder and chaos.

By flinging gravity across the void, Isaac Newton united physics and astronomy in a single science of matter in motion, fulfilling the dreams of Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and countless others in between. And while Newton was unable to discover the true cause of gravity itself, a giant riddle still, the laws he formulated provided convincing proof that we inhabit an orderly and knowable universe."


In Einstein's words: "Newton's aim was to find an answer to the question: Does there exist a simple rule by which the motion of the heavenly bodies of our planetary system can be completely calculated, if the state of motion of all these bodies at a single moment is known? Kepler's empirical laws of the motion of the planets, based on Tycho Brahe's observations, were already enunciated, and demanded an interpretation.* These laws gave a complete answer to the question of how the planets moved round the sun (elliptical orbit, equal areas described by the radius vector in equal periods, relation between semi-major axis and period of revolution). But these rules do not satisfy the requirement of causality. The three rules are logically independent of one another, and show no sign of any interconnection. The third law cannot be extended numerically as it stands, from the sun to another central body; there is, for instance, no relation between a planet's period of revolution round the sun and the period of revolution of a moon round its planet."

"But the principal thing is that these laws have reference to motion as a whole, and not to the question of how there is developed from one condition of motion of a system that which immediately follows it in time. They are, in our phraseology of today, integral laws and not differential laws. The differential law is the form which alone entirely satisfies the modern physicist's requirement of causality. The clear conception of the differential law is one of the greatest of Newton's intellectual achievements. What was needed was not only the idea but a formal mathematical method which was, indeed, extant in rudiment but had still to gain a systemic shape."

"He takes the conception of force from the already highly developed theory of statics. He is only able to connect force with acceleration by introducing the new conception of mass, which, indeed, is supported curiously enough by an apparent definition."

"But this was still a long way from the causal comprehension of the phenomena of motion. For the motion was only determined by the equation of motion if the force was given. Newton had the idea, to which he was probably led by the laws of the planetary motions, that the force acting on a mass is determined by the position of all masses at a sufficiently small distance from the mass in question. Not until this connection was realized was a completely causal comprehension of the phenomena of motion obtained."

"The logical completeness of Newton's system of ideas lay in the fact that the sole causes of the acceleration of the masses of a system prove to be the masses themselves.

"On the basis sketched, Newton succeeded in explaining the motions of the planets, moons, comets, down to fine details as well as the ebb and flow of the tides and the precessional movement of the Earth—this last a deductive achievement of particular brilliance. It was, no doubt, especially impressive to learn that the cause of the movements of the heavenly bodies is identical with the force of gravity so familiar to us from everyday experience."
What is "movement", if not a change in distance? Again, a change in distance is a change in the resonant wavelength allowed by said distance. Such matters, measured with vibration, will also change; even if the movement is the natural oscillation (de Broglie) of the mass itself.

"The optics of the undulatory theory also made use of Newton's law of motion, the law being applied to continuously diffused masses. The kinetic theory of heat rested solely on Newton's formulae of motion; and this theory not only prepared people's minds for recognition of the law of the conservation of energy, but also supplied a theory of gases confirmed in its smallest details, and a deepened conception of the nature of the second law of thermodynamics. The theory of electricity and magnetism also developed down to modern times entirely under the guidance of Newton's basic ideas (electric and magnetic substance, forces at a distance). " (Einstein's modern times)

"He had recognized that the observable geometrical magnitudes (distances of material points from one another) and their change in process of time do not completely determine movements in a physical sense. He shows this in the famous bucket experiment. There is, therefore, in addition to masses and their distances, varying with time, something else, which determines what happens; this "something" he conceives as the relation to "absolute space." He recognizes that space must possess a sort of physical reality if his laws of motion are to have a meaning, a reality of the same sort as the material points and their distances.

This clear recognition shows both Newton's wisdom and a weak side of his theory."


"The introduction of direct instantaneously acting forces at a distance into the exposition of the effects of gravitation does not correspond to the character of most of the phenomena which are familiar to us in our daily experience. Newton meets this objection by pointing out that his law of reciprocal gravitation is not to be taken as an ultimate explanation, but as a rule induced from experience.

Newton's theory offered no explanation of the very remarkable fact that the weight and inertia of a body are determined by the same magnitude (the mass). The remarkable nature of this fact struck Newton also.

None of these three points can rank as a logical objection against the theory. They form, as it were, merely unsatisfied needs of the scientific spirit in its effort to penetrate the processes of nature by a complete and unified set of ideas."


"Newton's theory of motion, considered as a program for the whole field of theoretical physics, suffered its first shock from Maxwell's theory of electricity. It was found that the reciprocal action between bodies through electrical and magnetic bodies does not take place through instantaneously acting forces at a distance, but through processes which are transmitted with finite velocity through space. Alongside the point-mass and its movements there arose, in Faraday's conception, a new sort of physically real thing, the "field."


"We owe to [Heinrich] Hertz the deliberate liberation of the conception of the field from all the scaffolding of the conceptions of mechanics, and to [Hendrik Antoon] Lorentz the liberation of the conception of the field from a material bearer; according to Lorentz the physical empty space (or ether) alone figured as bearer of the field; in Newton's mechanics, indeed, space had not been devoid of all physical functions. "

"Newton's hypothesis of action at a distance had been abandoned, to the attempt to find an electromagnetic explanation for Newton's law of motion, or to replace that law by a more accurate law based on the field theory. These efforts were not crowned with full success, but the mechanical basic conceptions ceased to be regarded as foundation stones of the physical conception of the universe."

"The Maxwell-Lorentz theory led inevitably to the special theory of relativity, which, by destroying the conception of absolute simultaneity, negatived the existence of forces at a distance. Under this theory mass is not an unalterable magnitude, but a magnitude dependent on (and, indeed, identical with) the amount of energy."

"The very possibility of a spatio-temporal construction which can be clearly brought into consonance with physical experience is denied. That a mechanical system should permanently admit only discrete values of energy or discrete states—as experience, so to say, directly shows—seems at first hardly deducible from a theory of fields working with differential equations. The method of [Louis] De Broglie and [Erwin] Schrödinger, which has, in a certain sense, the character of a theory of fields, does deduce, on the basis of differential equations, from a sort of consideration of resonance the existence of purely discrete states and their transition into one another in amazing agreement with the facts of experience; but it has to dispense with a localization of the mass-particles and with strictly causal laws."


more later..


TRoc

Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

Nice to see your ideas in Spherical Fourier Harmonics. I think the most important point to stress regarding the "dual" of "impulse" and "frequency" when we deal with Fourier is the nature of that impulse. Any "pure" frequency of a photon will automatically have "built in" an ensemble of frequencies simply because the emission or absorption "event" is "discrete" and is not infinite. This defines the width of the impulse function and thus "selects" the central Fourier frequency but also creates a number of "sidebands" around that event which "broadens" the pulse in the time domain and in the event of other "selections" would result in discrete frequencies in the "wave packet".

What I am saying is any quantum "packet" has a "beginning" and an "end" in time. Thus the packet does contain more than just the one frequency. The real question is why do these frequencies stay together?... this is yet another postulate. It is not needed really.

Why does a photon or a de Broglie particle (electron) exist with an "orbit" of 2user posted imageRn wavelengths in the Bohr Model. It is a postulate to have this "confinement". It too is not needed if you consider the space that it is moving in.

Emission and absorption is the root cause of the quantization. The wave phenomena is a truncated "packet".... it is not a series of "infinite waves". These are all dictated by the "cavity". The real problem with Quantum Electrodynamics is not that it gives the wrong answers we need to understand the "ontology" of what has happened in Science over the Century. Externally "closed" dimensional cavities are "open resonant cavities" to quantum particles not closed resonant cavities since the cavity dimensional walls are not the boundary conditions of the cavity. Any confined particle cannot reach that "outer" boundary and so for a confined "particle"... nodes at the "boundary" are not an option. The "boundary" is in the way the particle completes a "loop" of the cavity which it sees as "infinite space"... this is 2user posted imageRn (n being a principal quantum number) for a standing wave. This is the reason why no "box" can confine a particle since the boundary is reachable and it will eventually penetrate it. Dimensional cavities are quite different in that one crucial respect.

See... no postulate required when you add dimensions.

Cheers
Confused2
Hello Good_Elf et al,

I don't think we've had this already on this thread - sorry if it's old or unhelpful. An electronic engineer's "impulse function" is defined to be infinitely high and infinitely narrow - the usefuless of it comes because we say the area under the curve is "1" or (effectively) whatever we like - we're not mathematicians and it works so we use it. An example of an impulse at work - we zap a system at time t with a 10 joule impulse, all we are entitled to say about this is that system gains 10 joules at time t. To say how fast the energy level changed we use a step function (time integral of the impulse function - it is self-consistent). EE's have (almost) our own branch of mathematics (tables of Laplace transforms etc) to enable us to handle impulses and such like without difficulty. We use j (your i ) to handle phase relationships in (effectively) one number. Usually we're interested in current and voltage and we want to know the phase relationship between the two. If you considered current as your 'real' component then voltage would be the 'imaginary' component and vice versa - there is no 'oddness' about the imaginary part - it's just the way engineers use the mathematics to keep track of two numbers in what is effectively only one number.

Sooooooo..

We have some sort of agreement that E = h * f , but in the case of individual photons it is very difficult to give any physical meaning to f when the actual properties of a single photon look so much like a very good approximation to an impulse function. As Good_Elf originally suggested, a 3d interpretation of an impulse has to be something like an infinitely (or very very) small bubble with the energy 'contained' in something that is not any of x, y , z or t - this would force us to accept one or more 'new' dimensions for the bubble to carry all its 'stuff' around in.

Back to E = h * f. - the resulting 'wave packets' are as big as you want them to be on the day, in my humble opinion an attempt to pin the wrong type of mathematics onto a perfectly harmless equation. Wave packets give us some sort of description of how something potentially much smaller behaves on a fairly large scale.

Worse, Feynman wants us to look through the whole universe before attempting to make any prediction about photons, something like size is clearly tending to infinity here. OK that most of the probabilities add up to zero and can conveniently be discarded but they are there in principle.

Whatever you (we) choose has to come back to Faraday's equations which imply very strongly that free space can hold energy without any need whatsoever for particles...

I am bursting to say "if the mathematics you use starts to affect the properties of the thing you're looking at then.."

If anybody likes impulse functions I'll volunteer to zap a few more things with them if it would be helpful. smile.gif

Best wishes,

-C2.
Good Elf
Hi Confused2,

QUOTE
An electronic engineer's "impulse function"

Ouch ... you are trying to make me feel like a "navvy" biggrin.gif Still if that is what it takes.... he he he!

I guess you are unaware of the more "general use" of this theory in the "processing" of arbitrary signals in arbitrary dimensions. Also delta functions simply preserve the area under the curve so the height of the function may be varied at the expense of the width. There is a "link" between Fourier series.... and Bessel functions as I described earlier in the context of Spherical Harmonics.
I will "leave a trail of breadcrumbs".. Here is a reference to Dirac's delta function from Wolfram Research (love that guy!)...
"Dirac's delta function"
After you had a look at that and lightly considered its Fourier expression, then you need to consider the sampling characteristics of the delta function and the way that you can use that to Analise "signals" of an arbitrary character...
Black Box Filtering of arbitrary signals
That takes me back to the "good old days" when my fingers used to get "dirty" and I made things go "bang"... he he he! You are right I am a "navvy". ...work your way through it (a series of pages including the sampling properties) then (when you arrive) consider this page...
The Convolution Theorem
and the practical examples of it here with (photon) optics...
Light's Clock... convolution
Then roll back to consider what I mentioned here...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
... don't forget the reference to Wolfram Research Reference to...
Spherical Harmonics
Careful consideration of the modes of this indicate a "novel" interpretation of the "other" quantum numbers. Remember I have discussed a little bit about the primary quantum number above (n) and how to replace the Bohr Postulate.
The comment about all this is it's tremendous practical consequences in Physics and the way it can be utilized to process "analog" signals. The Delta Function is one way of expressing Heisenberg's Uncertainty relationship....
user posted image
This is a "threshold" function that defines the quantum properties of all such processes. That is... the quantity on the right is defined by the area under the function on the left. You can understand why E = hf... h is simply an "impulse" and f is a "scale" that multiplies it. Check out the units of h to see I am not kidding you there. Reciprocal time is a frequency.
I realize this is an awful lot but have a look through all that and "see what I see". I cannot use this forum to fully describe the end points of what this is about other than I would then refer you to the Geometric Langland's Program in String Theory. That is too "steep" for me though... I can only grasp "snippets" of that. I am trying to "look over the top of the wall" on this one.

None of this is "theoretical" like "Geometric Langland's Program" and it is all very practical Physics. There is nothing here that is not duplicable on a bench-top right now. It is all physics and it has no "postulates" in there.

Cheers
TRoc
Confused2,


Anything you can add to the conversation that brings clearer understanding is welcome by me (& I'm sure by Good Elf and Gadfly too).


GE,

I'm pretty sure I'm with you. I want to stay away from Fourier for the reasons you stated. They are not "pure" enough for my intentions. As a model, they serve their purpose.

You didn't clarify your "mysified" results of my "triad" equation. Are you mainly just wondering what it's good for?


TRoc


Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

QUOTE (TRoc Posted on Nov 19 2005+ 12:29 AM)
I want to stay away from Fourier for the reasons you stated. They are not "pure" enough for my intentions. As a model, they serve their purpose.

Gee... "purity" in physics!! Ouch! I have heard that before.. wonder where?... he he he!

I am very interested in your equation but I need to see what it does. Could you illustrate please. as you know I still do not know how to derive it.

My silence on this is my ignorance huh.gif

I was still "polishing" while you were answering here so some small things will have changed. My idea is not a "complete" TOE but an operational theory like the first efforts that Einstein had with Special Relativity... not that it compares... other than I want it really down to earth and no "philosophy"... he he he! Remember we started with "blowing bubbles". You will need non-linear functions when you deal with them...

User posted image

These ideas are very practical and it is what "nature does" naturally... there is no mathematical "artifice" here. Notice the "infinite wave" truncated in the time domain by the rectangular "window function". This is a "simplified" one dimensional analog of a particle if you consider it. These functions are albelian and invertible unlike other non-commutative processes used in quantum mechanics and tensors. Particle wave duality follows "naturally".

Cheers
Confused2
Hi all,

Thanks for the encouragment.

I'm not sure what Troc's equation is.. like GE .. hopefully it's on it's way.

Meanwhile..

Good_Elf and sampling - as soon as you have a distributed property you need another 'property' to keep the distribution in, potentially you end up with a large (possibly infinite) series of supporting properties which have no function other than to enable your original property to exist. This doesn't detract from the idea - just a thought - possibly the attempt to divide things up into discrete properties is the problem rather than the solution. Gone for a think! smile.gif

Best wishes,

Confused2.
Good Elf
Hi Confused2,

QUOTE
Good_Elf and sampling - as soon as you have a distributed property you need another 'property' to keep the distribution in, potentially you end up with a large (possibly infinite) series of supporting properties which have no function other than to enable your original property to exist.

Um... please clarify this. I am not sure what you are getting at there. unsure.gif Are you referring to the concept of mass and the way it affects the evanescent field of a particle and it's spread? cool.gif

Cheers
jal
Hi!
Just wanted to say,"I'm reading and learning your thread".
Jal
TRoc
GE,


Further comments on your link to "The Convolution Theorem" and the Fourier Transform.

"Filtering is one of the most important steps in geophysical data recording and processing. Often this step is explicitly called filtering; other times we easily recognize the data manipulation as a filtering operation. Every form of Earth science data from space imaginary to airborne, surface, and borehole geophysical surveying undergoes filtering before an analysis and interpretation of the data are made. In this sense, the very act of observing the data visually or graphically is filtering by our past experience and knowledge. Behavior scientists would say that any living organism has a response to a certain stimulus. This is filtering. Engineers describe filtering as an input signal being modified or transformed into a new output signal.

The engineering approach of treating filtering as a "black box" in which an input signal s(t) is modified to yield a new output y(t) is particularly revealing we think (Figure 4.1). The only kind of filtering that we will consider is where the "black box" performs an operation called convolution. In fact, we can consider filtering to be identical to convolution. "


Filtering, or convolution are both different terms for the simple frequency mixing that I have given. The "black box" is my simple rule/equation; the end result is the signal is modified to produce a new output.

On Continuous Convolution:

"The convolution integral is continuously evaluated at each time shift t by multiplication and integration of s(t) times h(t-t) for all values of t running from -infinity to + infinity. This process is graphically illustrated in Figure 4.3 by the classical example of the convolution of two rectangle functions (or "boxcar functions") to give a triangle function. For example, the convolution at a single t=t1 (the integration of s(t)h(t1-t)) is simply the shaded area under the curve since the rectangle function, s(t) has a constant value of 1. The complete convolution represents the changing area under the product s(t)h(t1-t) as t1 varies from -infinity to + infinity.

Figure 4.3. Action convolution of two rectangle functions with equal widths yields a triangle function "


First off, why are we using parameters (dimensions) of infinity in a model, and then, later, complaining about "nonsensical infinities" in our answers? A rectangle is a 2 dimensional geometrical form; Frequency is a 2 dimensional model (f/t). If dealing with 2 = widths, then one of the parameters can be dropped. This would be TIME in the frequency model. My "model" (equation) works irrespective of time. The 2 convoluted/filtered (superimposed) rectangles produce a triangle. My mixing of frequencies (with redundant parameters removed) produces the same, except in Sine form. A low (non-zero) beginning, a peak, and a low, non-zero end. This will be important when I derive the Black Body Radiation Curve with my equation. (no Planck, as in my Energy derivation)

"Convolution with a Dirac delta function

The sifting property (equation 2.5) enables us to understand convolution by a delta function. First, let's remember that a d-function is nonzero only where its argument is equal to zero so d(t-t) "exists" only where t=t. Therefore, the convolution of a signal, s(t) with d(t) is:

(4.3) link to equation

Thus, convolution with a delta function centered at the origin identically returns back the original function, s(t). This is easily visualized as a result of a unit-amplitude spike sliding past a signal so the multiplication (and integration) of the two functions simply leaves the original signal unchanged. If the delta function was not at the origin, e.g., d(t-t0), a delta function at t=t0, the convolution integral gives

(4.4) (use above link)

...

So, convolution with a Dirac comb yields an infinite series of replicas of the original function with period Dt, the spacing of the teeth of the comb (Figure 4.5). Would you believe that this result (convolution with a Dirac comb) is the basis for really understanding aliasing? "


Remember this point, in my next post you will see the latest in "combs"; also take another look at my matrix, and see the columns (evenly spaced "teeth") producing infinite series of replicas of the original (harmonic overtones of primary numeric representations).

Discrete Convolution is more of the same, except it has a set of "mirror" dimensions. Oscilloscopes again. Not what I'm after.


"In the previous section we said that most geophysical signals can be expressed as a decomposition of the signal into sine and cosine functions of different frequencies (also referred to as harmonics). This is called Fourier analysis. We are usually first exposed to this concept in a calculus or physics course where sine and cosine functions expressed as a Fourier series are used to represent a periodic function of time. (In 1822, French mathematician Joseph Fourier was the first person who attempted to prove the convergence of such a series.) There are the usual conditions placed on the signal, i.e.: 1) it can't be multivalued at any given time, 2) it can't have an infinite number of discontinuities, or maxima or minima, and 3) it must be bounded within its period. The frequencies of the trigonometric functions are the spectral components of the Fourier series. These frequencies are predetermined by the periodicity, T of the function and are equal to n/T, n = +1, +2, ... Therefore, the frequency spectrum is composed of discrete line spectra.

When a signal is not periodic, the spectrum is not discrete and the Fourier series must be generalized into the Fourier integral or Fourier transform. As long as the integral of the absolute value of the signal converges, the continuous signal s(t) can be expressed as the Fourier integral.."


It can't be multivalued at any given time? Doesn't this rule out the fact of superposition of "bosons"? Bounded within its' period... the arbitrary "beginning and end" of the process of the experiment (reading). What about the rest of the "time"? If the act of observation effects the convolution, then we must assume something different is happening in the absence of our vibrations and time frame boundaries.

"From Euler's relationship we clearly see that the Fourier transform pair have sine and cosine terms just like a Fourier series does. And, since we know that integration is the limiting expression of a summation that becomes continuous, we realize that the Fourier transform is really the expression of a infinite, continuous "summation" ...a rainbow is really nature's Fourier transform.
of sine and cosine functions. In fact, the Fourier transform can be expressed using separate sine and cosine transforms. So Fourier analysis expressed by the Fourier transform is simply the decomposition of a signal into its composite frequency (sine and cosine) components. Rather than the discrete spectral lines (frequencies) appearing in a Fourier series, the Fourier transform has a continuous (as used in Figure 2.5) spectrum to represent a nonperiodic process. The transform of a signal into its continuous frequency components is familiar to us all in nature when white light passing through a glass prism exposes its color spectrum (Figure 3.1). When this happens with rain drops it's called a rainbow. So a rainbow is really nature's Fourier transform although we've never heard anyone call a rainbow a Fourier transform. "


If the decomposition of the signal does not result in a continuous spectrum, as I have shown by my equation, then it must be to the periodic process itself. That can be represented by frequency alone (the periodic process). The prism does break down light in an "apparent" continuous spectrum; but it can also produce discreet values. I will come back to that proof later. For now, begin to explore the thought that we see green in the rainbow because our eyes perceive that color the easiest. It is the overlapping of yellow and cyan that cause us to perceive green. Double refraction reverses the spectrum, and removes green, therefore it is not a "true" primary. It lies in dualistic relationship with magenta, and neither are "in" the rainbow. Green does not appear in the "continuous" representation of the radiating black body. Didn't anyone ever ask why?

With green (and magenta) removed, the underlying "colors" of the coupled dualistic "electromagnetic" wave become more clear. An oscillation of red/yellow, combined with an oscillation of cyan/violet. I hope you are feeling a little closer to the "nature of electricity and magnetism"; there is a "rise" in sine form, followed by partial rotation, followed by a decrease in form (and energy). This has "obvious" affects in the visible spectrum. Not so apparent is that this pattern takes place between any octave of numbers, starting with the base of 1.0, and vibrating in whole integers.



TRoc


Confused2
Hello Jal,

Learning .. so am I.. Good_Elf seems to have that effect.

Hello Good_Elf,

QUOTE

Are you referring to the concept of mass and the way it affects the evanescent field of a particle and its spread? 


Basically yes.

These aren't conclusions - just thoughts so far -

When you have a bubble you can keep the sheep away from the goats but as the border gets less well defined..

1) There is a very fine balance between all the goats escaping and the density of goats zooming off in the direction infinity - a well behaved 'containment field' (property 1) seems to be required. I have to admit to having seen the possibility that the containment field might itself need to be contained (by a containment field property 2) ... etc - panic set in for a while. "One field to rule them all" I thought - and carried on.

2) The sheep/goat mixture may (or may not) have some physical significance...

3) I don't currently have the maths for a proper 3d (or more) attack but my one/two dimensional approach predicts sheep/goat ripples which will vary with the size/shape of the goat enclosure - this may wrong, soluble or may simply not need to be solved.

My thoughts incline in the direction of suggesting an infinitely small (or vv close to same) bubble will (strangely) keep the sheep/goat ripples under control, possibly they vanish - there might be a slight possibility of getting an inverse sqare law out of this if you wanted one.

Still thinking - I hope this is 'in a useful direction' or (better) you already have answers - either way, please let me know.

Best wishes,

Confused2.


Confused2
Hello Troc,

You must have posted while I was thinking. I still can't find your equation!

What I guess might be helpful is..

Integral(Dirac(-0.5) - Dirac(+0.5)).dt give a square of width 1 and height 1, centred on 0.

It looks to me as though a square doesn't avoid the infinities it just hides them a bit - I think they will probably bite from a square wave anway. If correct then I think it is probably better to get bitten by one Dirac rather than two.

Best wishes,

C2.
Good Elf
Hi TRoc, jal and Confused2,

Looking at confused2's question. Consider space-time (3D + T). The propagation of quantities on "flat-space" (even if that "flat space" is in higher dimensions) will be as an inverse square law. What this means is If you have a source of radiation it "spreads" as if it was on the surface of a sphere. The energy entering a circumscribed sphere or radius ruser posted image around any source will exit a sphere of larger radius ruser posted image a period...
ruser posted image - ruser posted image / C later.
That is where the velocity off propagation is C. In the case of light C is the speed of light. That is what will happen with any flat-space or even any space with curvature in it with "external" sources as well. This is because for all "sources" are external to the source of the energy. All it will do when the spreading radiation encounters curvature it is simply refracted by it as if it was a lens. Very similar to the phenomena of Newtons Rings with the large gravitational field around black holes etc. only Space-time curvature increases the volume of enclosed space Think of a two dimensional case where space-time was a membrane of rubber and is flat but stretched over a large space. Now draw a fixed circle on it of radius r. The area enclosed by the circle is...
A = user posted imageRuser posted image
Now what if I put some mass in the center of that membrane inside the circle. It warps the rubber and the surface area is curved into "depression" which includes the "source"... mass. What this does to the area inside that circle we drew previously is that it is increased. Externally the circle is not changed very much. It has much the same circumference but the interior area is now stretched to have a larger surface area. If you had prepared a number of postage size "stamps all of equivalent size you would now need more of them to cover that area. From the point of view of the interior of the circle energy will need to spread more and travel further before it reaches the outer circle. From all exterior points of that circle it "appears" that either the velocity of propagation has fallen or some energy has been "left behind" inside the circle. Each successively larger circle "traps" a proportion of the total energy until eventually almost all the energy remains inside the outermost circle for all times. With resonant structures these "zones" form real structures that shadow the "source" particles in both "Space-time" and the "Uberspace".

The upshot is the change in geometry from inverse square propagation with the index of that propagation is exactly 2 it is now greater than 2. This is due entirely to the mass. How far does this effect "travel".... it travels out to "infinity" and the ratio of the "effect" is a constant proportion of the index of 2. What this means is the energy "builds up" in successive greater and greater shells of propagation. Eventually there is negligible energy on the outside of the next shell and this is the situation "forever". The energy is "inductive" and returns to the source and it has a range. Note this only has an effect with particles with mass. Particles without mass radiate because the source has no mass and it obeys the inverse square relationship. Each successive shell (even if there are external sources) will on average exhibit the inverse square law of falling off exactly on "cue". The energy can escape the massless source and propagate away (usually as photons or rarely as gravitons).

For an electron for instance with mass this will not happen. The mass is part of it's "source"... curves space-time that little bit extra and "traps" the energy ultimately within a finite distance of the "source". That is why light is always traveling at the speed of light and spreading and electrons "stay put" and only have the velocity we give them. The energy of an electron is attached to the "source" and cannot escape because of the extra curvature of space-time. The same is occurring in the "Uberspace", it is curving the space there as well but more so. Since the "source" is so small the actual distances involved where you can effectively say there is no more "electron" out here is far shorter. So the electron has "finite range" and does not "spread" whereas the propagating photon has "infinite range" and "spreads".

A "funny" thing happens when you speed the electron up... it becomes a de Broglie particle. It is not entirely a quantum but it does take on some of the properties and its "range" increases due to relativistic motion and it begins to diffract (be affected by other sources but not as an "interaction"). The closer it travels to the speed of light the more like light it behaves. As with gravity... sources affect the way the energy propagates. Internal sources exhibit different behavior to the way external sources behave. They represent "systems" and it delineates them as far as energy processes are involved. Some sources cannot transfer energy to other systems because of the defining geometry.

Does this idea work for you? It is probably clearer in my mind than it is in other peoples so ask a "hard" question. I will repeat...
Each successively larger circle/sphere "traps" a proportion of the total energy until eventually almost all the energy remains inside the outermost circle/sphere for all times. With resonant structures these "zones" form real structures that shadow the "source" particles in both "Space-time" and the "Uberspace". These are just as real as the source particle and represent a particular kind of "dual".

An important point here is there is little or no "practical" difference between the "particle" and it's bosonic "dual". we must prevent ourselves thinking of these entities as one being "real" and the other being a kind of "ghost". It is really very dependent on the reference frame from which the observation is made as to what we "see" (or actually we can't "see"). These are really "detector" dependent quantities and our eyes are not able to observe any of this hard stuff. For instance what we see of the universe is not the hard bits of particles... it is actually the bosonic "ghostly" shells that are the reality for us and the particles are hidden from view because of "range". We live in a world of "light" and the nature of the bosonic shells gives light it's "substance" to our eyes. The "hard" nucleus and the electrons are "invisible" to the casual human observation. We see bosonic structure and it is our '"reality". They "suffer" a kind of historical chauvenism mixed with primitive ideas of "reality" and "common sense".

Cheers
gadfly
Hi Confused2 and jal

Welcome.
Please post some information on "impulse function". Educational references are preferred over personal opinions - but the latter will be read.
What is the difference between an electronics and electrical engineer?

Hi Troc

I am glad that some of the links were interesting and helpful.

Hi Good Elf

Thanks for posting reference to the geophysics site Introduction to Geophysical Analysis
http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...face/index.html

To all

Other geophysics websites by Gary A Glatzmaier that may be of interest:

1 - The Geodynamo
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html

2 - Magnetic Flip-Flops [with Paul H. Roberts]
http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.html
This site includes the following quote:
"For that matter, why is it that instead of quietly fading away, as magnetic fields do when left to their own devices, Earth's magnetic field is still going strong after billions of years? Einstein is said to have considered it one of the most important unsolved problems in physics. With a year of computing on Pittsburgh's CRAY C90, 2,000 hours of processing, [Gary] Glatzmaier and collaborator Paul Roberts of UCLA took a big step toward some answers. Their numerical model of the electromagnetic, fluid dynamical processes of Earth's interior reproduced key features of the magnetic field over more than 40,000 years of simulated time. To top it off, the computer-generated field reversed itself."
Confused2
Hello Gadfly,

I'm sorry I can't find a good reference to impulse functions - "Wiki Impulse Response" gets you something but it's not very helpful. My book has probably been out of print for about thirty years so that's no help. Any first year electronic engineering textbook should have them - you're supposed to do Laplace Transforms first but if you just follow the recipe you get the same result.

Electronic Engineers don't go much over one Amp and Electrical Engineers don't go much below. One is significantly cleverer than the other.

Hello Troc,

My particles are currently virtually infinitely small with nothing inside them and nothing to hold them together. Not a great result so far. There is sopmething to be found there and I haven't found it. I hope you have better luck...

Hello Good_Elf,

Many thanks for your response - as usual - wow. I already see contradictions in my postings on other threads (wrong! springs to mind) leading to an increasingly low level of confidence..


--------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_theorem

Gravity
Applied to a gravitational field we get that the surface integral is -4* pi * G times the mass inside, regardless of how the mass is distributed, and regardless of any masses outside.

-----------------------
Counter-intuitive I agree..
I hope this helps.

I have to spend a few days stringing up lights and stuff - busy time of year. I'll watch and try to contribute if I can.

Jal -- I hope you are still with us!

Best wishes,

Confused2.
TRoc
Everyone,


I can't resist a few more current papers, ranging from micro to macro, and "our level". Many specialties, many labels, one underlying cause: resonance. The states, the sizes, the perspective may change, but they can all be reduced to a rate of vibration. Bear with me smile.gif .


Infrared-Radiating Carbon Nanotubes

In light-emitting diodes (LEDs), oppositely charged carriers (electrons and holes) are injected into an active region where they can recombine and release energy as photons. Chen et al. (p. 1171) show that in suspended carbon nanotubes, the local acceleration of a single type of carrier (electrons or holes) creates excitons. Under these conditions of one-dimensional confinement, excitons recombine and release radiation in the infrared. This process is 100 to 1000 times more efficient than that of electron-hole recombination in LEDs.

Bright Infrared Emission from Electrically Induced Excitons in Carbon Nanotubes
Jia Chen,1* Vasili Perebeinos,1 Marcus Freitag,1 James Tsang,1 Qiang Fu,2 Jie Liu,2 Phaedon Avouris1*

We used the high local electric fields at the junction between the suspended and supported parts of a single carbon nanotube molecule to produce unusually bright infrared emission under unipolar operation. Carriers were accelerated by band-bending at the suspension interface, and they created excitons that radiatively recombined. This excitation mechanism is 1000 times more efficient than recombination of independently injected electrons and holes, and it results from weak electron-phonon scattering and strong electron-hole binding caused by one-dimensional confinement. The ensuing high excitation density allows us to observe emission from higher excited states not seen by photoexcitation. The excitation mechanism of these states was analyzed.
1 IBM Research Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Post Office Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA.
2 Department of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

ASTROPHYSICS: Cosmic Ringing

Gravitational attraction causes galaxies to clump together ever more strongly over time, creating a cosmic web of filaments, clusters, and superclusters. Tiny density fluctuations in the hot early universe, including ripples caused by sound waves in the plasma, have been amplified by gravity to produce the galaxy structures we see today. The faint ringing of these sound waves has been picked up in the distribution of the millions of galaxies mapped in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
Eisenstein et al. measured the correlation function of luminous red galaxies from the survey, finding a strong signal corresponding to structures with sizes of 100 Mpc, typical of superclusters of galaxies. This scale is as predicted from theories of structure in the cosmic microwave background, linking the physics of sound waves in the early universe to galaxy distributions. Eisenstein et al. use this correspondence to measure the overall density of matter in the universe (30%) and to infer the presence of dark energy. -- JB

Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005).
© 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved.

More reasons for a "one theory of vibration fits all" approach to the spectrum of my matrix.

Number 753 #2, November 9, 2005 by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Zen and the Art of Temperature Maintenance

Scientists at the Iwate University in Japan have shown that the skunk cabbage -- a species of arum lily and whose Japanese name, Zazen-sou, means Zen meditation plant -- can maintain its own internal temperature at about 20 degrees Celsius, even on a freezing day (see Physics News Graphics).
...
According to one of the authors of the new study, Takanori Ito (taka1@iwate-u.ac.jp), only one other plant species, the Asian sacred lotus, is homeothermic, that is, able to maintain its own body temperature at a certain level. Most other plants do not produce heat in this way because they seem to lack the thermogenic genes (the technical name for which, in abbreviated form, is SfUCPb). Moreover, the researchers, studying subtle oscillations in the plant’s internal temperature, claim that the thermo-regulation process is chaotic and that this represents the first evidence for deterministic chaos among the higher plants.

The resultant trajectory in the abstract phase space (where, typically, one plots the plant’s temperature at one time versus the temperature at another time) is a strange attractor, which the authors refer to as a Zazen attractor, a "Zen meditation" attractor.

Ito and Ito, Physical Review E, November 2005



This last one shows a non ordered form (chaos) still being deterministic. The leaves do not follow the ordered approach of the phi series, necessary to make the most of Sun and rain. Its needs dictate a different approach: avoid the transfer of energy (resonance) by maintaining a high BF number through "chaotic" form (leave shape and position relative to center). This results in "heat"; a non = zero, non = tonic, filtered frequency. (the "45" degree, least resonant, position) Remember the "mid-point" results in a peak "energy" (resonance) because the BF is equal to both the fundamental, and the octave (the overtone of the tonic).


TRoc

TRoc
GE & all,


One especially pertaining to dimensions, and time, and measurement from Wikipedia:

Planck units and the invariant scaling of nature

Referring to Duff Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants and Duff, Okun, and Veneziano Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants (The operationally indistinguishable world of Mr. Tompkins), if all physical quantities (masses and other properties of particles) were expressed in terms of Planck units, those quantities would be dimensionless numbers (mass divided by the Planck mass, length divided by the Planck length, etc.) and the only quantities that we ultimately measure in physical experiments or in our perception of reality are dimensionless numbers. (When one commonly measures a length with a ruler or tape-measure, that person is actually counting tick marks on a given standard or is measuring the length relative to that given standard, which is a dimensionless value. It is no different for physical experiments, as all physical quantities are measured relative to some other like dimensioned values.)

...
The relevant parts of Planck's 1899 paper leave some confusion as to how he managed to come up with the units of time, length, mass, temperature etc. which today we define using Dirac's Constant and motivate by references to quantum physics before things like and quantum physics were known. Here's a quote from the 1899 paper that gives an idea of how Planck thought about the set of units.

...ihre Bedeutung für alle Zeiten und für alle, auch außerirdische und außermenschliche Kulturen notwendig behalten und welche daher als »natürliche Maßeinheiten« bezeichnet werden können...

...These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as "natural units"...
blink.gif


Today, we use bar h, which incorporates Pi, and dividing by 2. (h/2 Pi)

I am using Pi (the circle form), and dividing by 2 (the octave form), and going DIRECTLY to the whole integer representation of the electron resonant quantity (the electron volt) of Energy. FASTER, SIMPLER.

More from Wikipedia:

The so-called Dirac picture or interaction picture has time-dependent states and observables, evolving with respect to different Hamiltonians. This picture is most useful when the evolution of the states can be solved exactly, confining any complications to the evolution of the operators. For this reason, the Hamiltonian for states is called "free Hamiltonian" and the Hamiltonian for observables is called "interaction Hamiltonian".

The interaction picture does not always exist, though. In interacting quantum field theories, Haag's theorem states that the interaction picture does not exist. This is because the Hamiltonian cannot be split into a free and an interacting part within a superselection sector.

The Heisenberg picture is the closest to classical mechanics, but the Schrödinger picture is considered easiest to understand by most people, to judge from pedagogical accounts of quantum mechanics. The Dirac picture is the one used in perturbation theory, and is specially associated to quantum field theory.

Similar equations can be written for any one-parameter unitary group of symmetries of the physical system. Time would be replaced by a suitable coordinate parameterizing the unitary group (for instance, a rotation angle, or a translation distance) and the Hamiltonian would be replaced by the conserved quantity associated to the symmetry (for instance, angular or linear momentum).

...
The quantum harmonic oscillator is an exactly-solvable system where the possibility of choosing among more than one representation can be seen in all its glory. There, apart from the Schrödinger (position or momentum) representation one encounters the Fock (number) representation and the Bargmann-Segal (phase space or coherent state) representation. All three are unitarily equivalent.

Time as an operator

The framework presented so far singles out time as the parameter that everything depends on. It is possible to formulate mechanics in such a way that time becomes itself an observable associated to a self-adjoint operator. At the classical level, it is possible to arbitrarily parameterize the trajectories of particles in terms of an unphysical parameter s, and in that case the time t becomes an additional generalized coordinate of the physical system. At the quantum level, translations in s would be generated by a "Hamiltonian" H-E, where E is the energy operator and H is the "ordinary" Hamiltonian. However, since s is an unphysical parameter, physical states must be left invariant by "s-evolution", and so the physical state space is the kernel of H-E (this requires the use of a rigged Hilbert space and a renormalization of the norm).

This is related to quantization of constrained systems and quantization of gauge theories.

The problem of measurement

The picture given in the preceding paragraphs is sufficient for description of a completely isolated system. However, it fails to account for one of the main differences between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, that is the effects of measurement.



As I have been saying, in experiments, isolated in time by a beginning and end, what we have is sufficient; it does not, however, speak of underlying causation. It really is about the perception of measurement. ALL of our perceptions are dualistic, because time is linear to us; we are born at point A, and die at point B. This never varies for our physical reality, but it is not the reality of the Universe, or God. (for you atheists, there can never be a "big bang" that is the true beginning, because it can never be the last answer; what WAS before that?)

Aristotle was not wrong, just misunderstood. The natural state is at rest; it is life (or existence) itself that creates the initial state of imbalance. Newton's first law should be an unbalanced state, acted upon by an unbalanced force, creates change in velocity (or mass, momentum, etc.). For example, his experiments with gravity begin with the objects raised to an un-normal height (unbalanced/non-equilibrium). Only the unbalanced state explains the how the MOVEMENT began in the first place.


TRoc


Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

Whew... that is very difficult to digest. I am very unsure that I can follow. Remember I am the "navvy" around here! tongue.gif

As to the dual nature of time and frequency... I am quite happy with that. The boundary conditions of branes are not "temporal" but "periodic" (the reciprocal). The other boundary conditions are not spatial but "reciprocal distances"... reciprocal space relative to our space. Mind you I have not worked out all the details yet.

I am not very happy about the "philosophy" about the Planck Length or other Planck quantities. I am not convinced by extensions of Planck's Constant beyond the practical limits for which it was originally designed. I am quite sure that Max Planck would be "horrified" with what those who want to quantize space-time are attempting to do.

Lets be open about this... explain "simply" why we need to quantize space-time and any justification in the real world for this operation. For me this is the most important question and when you answer this I will see what is the heart of this matter from your point of view. It is definitely a pretty desperate concept since it places your theory far from the realm of "Physics" and into the category of a "philosophy"... don't you agree?

My preference is for a theory that is totally testable. That is the core of my proposition as Einstein would put it...
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."

While I do not believe in a personal "God" I do believe that there is a special place for those who seek to understand the nature of our reality. I believe that it is not placed beyond man's grasp as you are so successfully arguing here. There is indeed a purpose to Man's Place in this cosmos... and it is as a "simple tool" that the Cosmos is using to understand itself. We are neither the only tool nor the most perfect tool. I believe you can work with it or you can fight it. What none of us should do is stand in front of it to impede it's path... he he he! It is like a very large "Bus" and it is not stopping just because some "upstart" of a human wishes it to stop. wink.gif

My view is that in the final act... the Laws of the Universe are both simple and they are "attainable" as a real experimental "Truth"... as near as we are prepared to go and "suffer" it's "white heat". It may be "hard" and the way "treacherous" and "torturous" but in the end will come true "enlightenment". You just need to believe that the Universe "knows what it is doing". wub.gif

"Wo viel Licht ist, ist starker Schatten." ... JW Goethe

Cheers
Confused2
Hello Good_Elf, Troc et al,

As usual I am mostly in agreement with Good_Elf.

In my posting before Troc's..

Applied to a gravitational field we get that the surface integral is -4* pi * G times the mass inside, regardless of how the mass is distributed, and regardless of any masses outside.

I've seen this on this forum somewhere else and I think it was rejected for some reason. (eg not liking it). It is simply a consequence of superposition - almost a statement of. It assumes that any external field entering one side of your chosen volume will exit the other without adding or subtracting from the TOTAL field due to the mass contained, superposition, pure and simple.

Further point, you don't need a huge sphere to catch all your gravity - you get more of a weaker field and the resultant sum is predicted to be the same as the sum of the much stronger field closer to the source, whatever the shape or size as long as it fully encloses the source.

Exactly the same applies to charge, except it gets called Gauss's theorum.
There is probably a foofoo theorum for magnetism that states the result is always zero - every north pole has an equal and opposite southpole.

We all want our fields to fizz and pop a bit so we can get strings and photons and other stuff out of them.

So far it's looking (to me) like one needs to introduce some uncertainty (fizz) by looking at the measurement, the source itself, or 'space', (or other). Field theory has to work and it isn't going to sparkle without some good kicks, something impulsive.

Feel free to kick - (preferably not me sad.gif ).

Propose, test, propose, test.

If we get some digging started I'll do my best to supply some lighting and so on..

Best wishes,

C2.

Alternatively I might be turning into Dalek

"You will obey me"

But I really want to see some bubbles/gravity whatever - please forgive me.
TRoc
All,


OK, I still have one more paper (from this years' Nobel Laureates) to quote from, but let me give you something to chew on.


Zeroth law of Thermodynamics: If A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are also in thermal equilibrium.

Thermal vibrations, aka "heat", are the difference between temperatures, aka "a specific frequency"; therefore this is the "beat" between frequencies. The beat frequency (BF) is a new, "filtered/convoluted/resulting" frequency; aka the change in frequency, or df. The sum of these (beat sum=BS) BF's is then compared to the beginning state, to describe the final state. This is the "measuring" process.

Let A = f1 = 392Hz
Let B = f2 = 494Hz
Let C = f3 = 588Hz

B - A = BF1 of 102, C - B = BF2 of 94, BF1 + BF2 = BS of 196
C - A = BF3 of 196
BS(A&B) + BF3 = 392
Equilibrium with initial state = resonance.

This also follows Galileo's Principle, aka Newton's 1st Law. The "thermal equilibrium", represented by BF's, are in balance, therefore the "inertia" of the "object" is maintained. The longest wave (lowest frequency) "wins"; energy is conserved. This is The First law of thermodynamics.

My "resonant matrix" breaks down the dynamics of this process numerically. The "octave", or quantum values between resonant values, produces the 3 values given in the last example. I will take the entire line/row, and using only the concept of BF, produce the Black Body Radiation Curve, using the 1st Law: the work exchanged in an adiabatic process depends only on the initial and the final state, and not of the details of the process.

.f1......f2......f3......f4......f5......f6......f7......f8......f9.....f10.....f11...f12....f13
262...277...294...311...330...349...370...392...415...440...466...494...524
.....15.....17.....17.....19.....19.....21.....22.....23.....25.....26.....28.....30.....BF f1-f2, f2-f3,..
..........32....34.....36.....38......40....43.....45......48....51......54.....58........BF f1-f3, f2-f4,..
..............49.....53.....55.....59.....62.....66.....70.....74.....79.....84.............BF f1-f4, f2-f5,..
...................68.....72.....76.....81....85......91....96.....102...109................BF f1-f5, f2-f6,..
.......................87.....93.....98....104...110...117...124....132....................BF f1-f6, f2-f7,..
..........................108....115...121...129...136...145...154.........................BF f1-f7, f2-f8,..
...............................130....138...146...153...164...175.............................BF f1-f8, f2-f9,..
....................................153...163....172...183...194................................BF f1-f9, f2-f10,..
........................................178....189....200...213...................................BF f1-f10, f2-f11,..
.............................................204....217....230.......................................BF f1-f11, f2-f12,..
..................................................232....247............................................BF f1-f12, f2-f13
.......................................................262................................................BF f1-f13

©2005

Starting with the value (frequency) of 15, and working your way around the outside values, you end up with 30. The outside values on the left side are in "the steep curve", and the outside values on the right are parabolic in nature, and come down gradually. The peak value is resonant with the initial value (tonic), giving the "highest energy" value.

Each row is the BF's of the previous row; the "legs" of the triangular forms make lines to which previous frequency the beat was derived from. The first number in each row is the Tonic of that row. Each tonic, by row, is sequential in time; the time sequence continues down "the back side" of the main triangle.

If, as I have shown, Energy can be derived without " h ", as can the black body radiation curve, then can we finally have a wave only Physics?

To earn a "PhD" is to attain "mastery" of a given subject; the "Ph" DOES stand for Philosophy. Any fundamental, all encompassing Law will have a large degree of philosophy to it.

The next "demon" I wish to cast out is the Photoelectric effect. Deriving it without "particles", and only "resonance".


until then... biggrin.gif


TRoc

jal
Hi everone!
I'm still here and learning. I was going to limit my discussions to "TOE". I realize that if all of the participants put in their little piece into the "witches brew/toe" that we could end up with a "testable TOE". I'm only glad that the job organizing/selecting that discussion is not mine. I hope that REALITY CHECK WILL BE UP TO THIS MAJOR TASK.
My ideas have short comings. If they did not then you would be studying/reading them in/from the high school science subjects.
First, we must understand space and time.
I'll only say that if space has a structure it must also have a particle that has the same internal structure/topology which permit/allows/makes the (ISL), INVERSE SQUARE LAW. 1/R^2 valid/possible. (and other things) What is of primary importance is that there must be two in/out paths at x,y,z of every particles of space. What it is made of is secondary. Do your own drawings and obey the rules of packing of circles and spheres because that is how space is organized. Convince yourself. Nobody else can. Of course if you believe that space is made of nothing then there is no use in trying to find a structure to a nothing particle of space or to try to find how those nothing particle of space are organized.
The resonance matrix will surely come into play when the discussion of particles is reached. However, you might find that the topology of a particle of space will have a greater influence than what you suspected.
Someday, someone will be able to connect all of the dots/our ideas/theories into useful/working formulas for the users/physicist. It won't be me.
Jal
Confused2
Hi Troc,

I am taking your idea and trying to turn it into something I can understand ..
We have a 3 particle system, the particles are called 1,2 and 3.
To help me stay sane I'm going to replace your F which is your frequency by my E which is my energy,
with the realationship E = k * 1/f.
The notation has the significance that E(1,1) is the energy of particle 1, E(1,2) is the difference between the
energy of particle 1 and particle 2 and so on.. we get

E(1,1) E(2,1) E(3,1)
E(1,2) E(2,2) E(3,2)
E(1,3) E(2,3) E(3,3)

Formally we should have minus signs in the bottom left hand bit but that is the least of the problems at the moment.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can choose any E(1,1) and E(2,2) and E(3,3) but the differences , the E(2,1) etc
are consequences of your first choice - they're not free agents. You can add another particle, this would give us terms
which look like E(1,1,1), E(1,2,3) etc. For n particles you get E(1..n) - it MUST still add up with mathematical precision or you have nothing.

The distribution you seek is competion with equations involving terms like e**(hv/kT) and you will need to prove (analytically) that whatever you have is the same distribution without the assumption about h or k..

QUOTE

Starting with the value (frequency) of 15, and working your way around the outside values, you end up with 30. The outside values on the left side are in "the steep curve", and the outside values on the right are parabolic in nature, and come down gradually. The peak value is resonant with the initial value (tonic), giving the "highest energy" value.


Maths is easy, buy a maths textbook, 1st year university should be ok, make sure it smells ok, read it, sleep with it, you don't need to understand it, when you need maths for something (like here and now) you go to the page you want, plug in what you've got and finish your posting with "Gotcha Confused2 - you f*****g s******d ", it really is that easy - I KNOW - I'm doing it now. The worst that can happen (to me) is that I might have to buy another book - in a year .. who knows where you will be..

Best wishes,

C2.

smile.gif Ok, it's up to Troc.
fivedoughnut
Good Elf......your bubbles and my hypertoroids seem to have a little "common ground" as they too are energy which has been inflated into higher space.
Good Elf
Hi TRoc,

biggrin.gif He he he... Well I must hand it to you for really putting in an effort. What I would say is this... with beat frequencies there is the sum of the frequencies as well as the differences. You have only recorded the differences there. You will need to account for the sum as well.

Where is this going though? I will say whatever it is... it is very "creative". Far be it that I should interfere with this effort. I believe that it must be going somewhere. Your maths may derive the black body radiation curve. This is hohlraum physics... I would point you to this page for some very interesting mathematics...
Electromagnetic Waves in a Cubical Cavity
and the next bit... "How many modes in the cavity?". I believe these equations are the very heart of the derivation of the spin quantum numbers... from a consideration of higher dimensions the Bohr Radius leads to the resonant dimensional hohlraum not with nodes on the cavity walls though... with a modified geometry. I am unsure what it is you are "hitting on" but it is not far from the mark that you need to "hit". Fire away.

Cheers

PS: Have a look here as well...
Blackbody Intensity as a Function of Frequency
Good Elf
Hi fivedoughnut,

QUOTE
Good Elf......your bubbles and my hyper-toroids seem to have a little "common ground" as they too are energy which has been inflated into higher space.

Well they would be dabbling with much the same sort of thing. I try not to deal with the technical mathematics here. Most concepts can be more easily dealt with through "narrative". Certainly "hyper-toroids" are the stuff higher dimensions and objects are made of. Toroidal spaces in higher dimensions closes spaces in the "preferred" manner. I suppose you have seen that paper on the "Topological Photon"?
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
Other than the idea that this is in too few dimensions this paper is quite brilliant in the introduction of charge and the various other properties of the electron from a "confined" photon. I would add that mass can also easily be introduced. I believe that this confinement is impossible in "Space-time" but "easy" in the six dimensional "Uberspace".

Pop in a link here to what you have or quote from one of your posts. I think we have been in different posts. I will look up you "master links" to see if I can get an idea of what is going on.

Cheers
fivedoughnut
I'll start reading this stuff now......cheers!
fivedoughnut
Dear Good Elf.....yes that stuff's definately similar to my hyper-doughnut model.
The main difference is I've a grey hole singularity present at the heart of my structures.

I've cut and pasted the 1st bit of my concept to give you a rough idea.
Methinks we're both on the right track here along with Zeph' and all.


For my T.O.E I've a purely Geometric explaination.

All energy may occupy specific dimensional states. I'll start with the lowest, this being the photon.
A photon in my model (polarized) is a 2 dimesional vacuole occupying a one dimensional plane, rather like a circle drawn on flat paper. The perimeter of this circle decreases with energy as the concentration of energy in space causes it to "shrink".
From the perimeter, energy penetrates further into lower dimensional space until it passes through a zero space singularity, then back out again to the perimeter.
This all happens at light speed to give us frequency ( the to-ing and fro-ing of energy from the vacuolar edge through a "little GREY hole" and back out to the edge again.

I feel it's the opposite directions of these import & export "waves" that give light it's electromagnetic properties.

The next type of manifold I've envisaged as a 4-D hypertoroid and to understand how it affects our universe, simply imagine a hoop passing through a 2 dimensional plane. The ring will intersect this plane at two points, well in elevated space the 4-D hypertoroid intersects 3 dimensional space likewise.

During a gamma photon decay a gamma ray spontaneously interconverts into an electron/positron pair. Perhaps this is not so much a "decay"rather an elevation of energy into higher dimensional space, producing the 4-D hypertoroidal manifold.

Energy from this manifold because of its 4-D nature would, prior to 3-D intersection would come in from what we term infinity (and from all directions at once)

The energy would build from the very edges of our 3-D universe, like imploding spheres, evertually perforating our 3-D space creating the electron and positron, who's CHARGE is a consequence of the penetrative direction of harmonic energy flow around this vacuolar 4-D manifold. This imploding/exploding flow of energy from and to the 4th dimension via a connective grey hole singularity manifests as the gravitational field / mass.

To visualise this, think of a circle with a line drawn horizontally through its middle. Place your imaginary index finger (@12 O'clock) on the circumference and trace round. What you'll find (if you're going clockwise) is that your finger will be passing down to the line at the one point of intersection and 180 degrees later your finger will pass upwards past the other. How's that for simplicity and like the positron and electron this opposite direction gives us particle / antiparticle. Inside the spherical vacuoles produced by the 4-D "field", further dimensional penetration occurs, just like the with photons, yes, at the heart of these particles there's three 2-D vacuoles all arranged at 90 degrees to each other (quarks??). Energy passes from high space to zero space and back again in a continuous implosion/explosion or as I call it "the import export business".

The next manifold elevation is a 5-space hypertoroid. A good example of this is the Muon which when the 5-D field collapses (decays), energy is transferred downspace to the 4-D hypertoroid and down again, eventually to the three 2-D vacuoles at the heart this structure. The energy is sufficient to elevate all three 2-D vacuoles into four space and Hey Presto! three electrons appear. You might be wondering at this point why in addition, three positrons were not produced?
Well, nearly all the matter in our universe is produced by hypertoroids in partial intersection (rather like a ring through a bulls nose) otherwise all matter would have gone downspace to photons by mutual annihilation. There may exist an anti-universe next to ours with positrons orbiting anti-protons who knows?

Lastly I'll explain the neutron, which in my model is an electronic vacuole which encapsulates a much smaller protonic vacuole. Both share a common zero space singularity. The harmonic incompatability of this structure allows for around 15 minutes of union before the electron is "evicted".
In the nucleus of atoms, electrons are constantly evicted and re-housed by other nuclear protons.

Have fun with this and I'll leave you with... quantum interconnectivy between twin photons might be due to this type of vacuolar/singularity connectivity creating "wormholes" pretty much everywhere....so much for Bohr!......he's bohring (snigger)

fivedoughnut Posted: Nov 13 2005, 01:31 PM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5379
Joined: 13-November 05



Particles impart energy into their spacial environment via the import / export mechanism that's driven by the harmonics of higher dimensional hyperfields.
The amount of energy in space correlates to the degree of spacial compression or shrinkage, basically this is what we understand as a gravitational field.
What is the mechanism behind momentum gain within a gravitational field?
Realise that the spacial enviroment is non-uniform, large masses create large spacial compression which affects the shape of the intersectional 3-D vacuole and all vacuoles are subject to innumerous surface distortions.
Gravitational energy is induced into the vacuoles of any particles that lie in it's influence and is absorbed by the aforementioned import flow.
Two masses are attracted to each other because of mutual inductance. The velocity increase in each is created by vacuolar asymmetry, which affects all vacoules in both masses and alters the distance between the vacuole perimeter and the inner spacial singularity. At the sides of the vacoules where the masses are facing each other the vacuolar perimeter to singularity length is shortened in comparison to the sides that face away. This asymmetry creates a huge problem as the incoming import field is harmonic in nature so must be fully sustained, integrity wise.
To compensate for the vacuolar warping the vacuole moves towards the source of gravity so as to balance the system. This however initiates a new problem because now both masses are closer together increasing the vacuolar warping, therefore they increase speed and so on...yes what I'm describing is acceleration!

TRoc
GE,


You asked, quote "What I would say is this... with beat frequencies there is the sum of the frequencies as well as the differences. You have only recorded the differences there. You will need to account for the sum as well."

We are talking about a black body being heated, having the color change from black to red to orange to yellow to white to cyan to blue, and a little violet, but not enough to over-ride the last blue color. We are not talking about "pure resonance" here, we are talking about frequency mixing by my rules of resonance. The "beat sum" is 262 in that example, which is the "ground state" of the body, and the state to which it returns when the "heat" is turned off. In actuality, there is no BS; the frequencies are not happening all at once. It would be different if heating a black body produced a rainbow. rolleyes.gif

The "chaotic" frequencies of heat take time to produce the result, and time to cool back off. We are not talking about the continual application of a resonant frequency (or group of frequencies). That would do more than change "the color" of the body; it would ionize it into something different. Apply a laser to metal for long enough, and the state we call "metal" will change.

Of course, the frequencies I gave are not in the visible range. From my Matrix, you can see that all the numbers are produced with the same "quantum spacing"; therefore it does not matter what "row" you choose from. This works just fine beginning with a frequency of 4.09e14, and covering one octave from there. It requires 14 digit computations for the kind of accuracy I am giving. You can understand why I did not use visible frequencies on this thread for an example.


Confused2,

Of course I could use more complicated mathematics like Integrals and such. The point of this example is just the opposite. I want to use the most simple method to model the empirical data. That is Occam's razor; the "Judge" of Science, deciding in favor of the simplest approach every time.


TRoc

gadfly
Hi TRoc:

I think that I can follow and understand some of your work in the post of Nov 21 2005, 09:31 PM

I am using HyperPhysics from Georgia State University as an aide to do this.
There is a topic on Sound and Hearing with a subsection of Traveling Waves that contains information on the Wave Equation and Wave Solutions without using h [Planck‘s constant] or h-bar [Dirac‘s constant or reduced Planck constant]. There is also a subsection of Beats with uses that includes Radio Applications.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/beat.html

To play the role of a “questioning examiner”:

1 - Are you aware that calculation for energy without h or h-bar has been accomplished, although NOT by using a BF method to my knowledge?

There is a discussion of the Hamiltonian in the Schrödinger Equation at Introduction to Quantum Mechanics from UC-SD. This specifically states that h or h-bar appears in the time-dependent version and is absent in the time-independent version.
http://www.sdsc.edu/chemdyn/chem515/lectur...ek4/lecture.htm

2 - Is there any significance that f13 is double the value of f1?

Note that f13 = 524 and subtracting f1 = 262 yields 262.

3 - Is it appropriate to comment that half of your curve is a parabola while the other half is NOT?

The curve does have vague resemblance to a “Black Body Radiation Curve” as pictured in ‘Blackbody Intensity as a Function of Frequency’ from HyperPhysics (above) in the section or Cavity Radiation or Blackbody Radiation of Quantum Physics.

There is another graph of this curve at Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Other websites are also listed in a google search. None of these curves appear to be parabolas. One example has a Gaussian-like distribution, but most have skewed distribution.

The “outside values on the right” [262, 247, 230, 213, 194, 175, 154, 132, 109, 84, 58, 30] do NOT appear to be parabolic when graphed. The curve does appear to be non-linear but always decreasing in value without a vertex or increase in value needed for a parabola. When considered with the increasing numbers on the right [15, 32, 49, 68, 87, 108, 130, 153, 178, 204, 232 and again 262] then this is a pointed vertex curve that only vaguely resembles a parabola. I am NOT familiar with what kind of curve yours might be, but one suspects that it may be reproduced in other settings. Your curve may simply have a pointed vertex due to a limited number of data points.

As an aside, there is an interesting curve called catenary [y = k cosh(x/k)] associated with how gravity influences a suspended rope or cable that is very similar to a parabola [and related mathematically in some manner that I do NOT know].
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/catenary.html

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
RealityCheck

Hi GOOD ELF, EVERYONE!

Just wanted to say that I posted something in the TOE thread that relates to this thread. Thanks. Ciao all!

RealityCheck.
.
TRoc
All,


Keep the questions coming, I need to refine my presentation.

In general, let me say this: if you give just equations (complex or not), most people will not solve the equation. They will base the "correctness" of the equation on their knowledge; if it is not familiar, they will be skeptical. For the rest of the 99.9% of the planet, the triangle diagram I used is better.

On the triangle, you see in bold, the example frequencies used. They are not arbitrary, they are the numerical representations of the natural "spectrum". In the black body (BB) experiment, an object (black) is heated until its' color begins to change. It changes from 1 color to the next, ONE color at a time, but not ONE frequency at a time; the value jumps in quantum steps. At that point of change (by definition of "change"), TWO frequencies exist. They are in the same space (the body), and SEQUENTIAL in time. This is the condition necessary for the BF to exist. Something that I did not explain well is that the "tonic" is the ground state/room temp. frequency, and NOT the first "color" perceived. It is this frequency that all others are then "calculated" by. The triangle is a model that produces values that, when graphed out, replicates the "BB Curve". Note that in the REAL experiment, this also true: the ground state is NOT on the chart. That frequency is FAR below our PERCEPTION (visible light). The experiment is based on a question that stems from our perception of color.

It is definitely worth mentioning here that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BLACK BODY! It can only be approximated in the lab by a cavity with a much smaller (than cavity) hole. The term stems from the idea that BLACK (the color) absorbs all EM radiation, and reflects none. Nothing passes through it; we know now (as compared to 1862) that this is not true: there are wavelengths that "pass through" the entire Planet. If the original hypothesis were true, don't you think we would be getting better than ~<20% efficiency with solar panels? Because of "the ultra violet catastrophe" that classical theory produced, a refinement was in order. Planck answered the call. His answer was the CROSSROADS in Science, at which, I believe, we went the wrong way. His methods were of statistical averaging in nature, and began the use of "probabilities" in Science. The only probability that I want in MY science is 100%! Because of the TREMENDOUS "smallness" (6.626e-34), in relation to the size of the electron (~2.4e-12), and the "yet to be seen" photon, radiating in visible wavelengths (~4 to 8e-7), of course you can produce good approximations. This "quantum" doesn't work from the Macro world down; it is not scalable. We need a scalable quantum! Consider other problems with the color change of the heated black object: It never turns green; this shows something is lacking in the current models. The electromagnetic "spectrum" chart, in every physics book, predicts, by definition, that green will come between yellow and cyan. The same chart EXCLUDES the possibility of the color magenta, while at the same time, using it as the OPPOSITE of green, to balance out the color wheel (also in every physics textbook).
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH BOTH OF THESE MODELS.

The "radiation" from the BB changes in intensity during the experiment. The change in this intensity rises sharply to a peak, and then drops back down similar to a parabolic curve (it is not a parabolic curve, hence its' OWN name). This intensity is measured in Energy that is derived from the frequencies involved; therefore there is no need to convert to Energy, if the same pattern can be produced in the frequencies themselves.

Back to the triangle. Each row is ordered sequentially in time. The first number in each row (after the 1st row) is the beginning state for that moment, and the last number in that row is the end state in the opposing time-line. If you draw a line parallel to the frequency/wavelength line on the STANDARD BB radiation graph at any "height" (representing the "state"of intensity), you get a beginning and end state that matches the values produced with my triangle, IE NOT symmetric. The time-line is NOT on the standard graph; we know it to be continuous from the "beginning to the end" of the experiment. Something causes the symmetry of the TIME-FREQUENCY-WAVELENGTH relationship to be broken, or "Doppler shifted". This was the"great problem" that needed resolving. I have stated the equivalence of a Doppler shift to a change in frequency or wavelength, and a BF. I will restate The First Law of Thermodynamics, with emphasis added.

"The work exchanged in an adiabatic process depends only on the initial and the final state and NOT on the details of the process."


TRoc


PS to Gadfly: to your questions not answered above. I did not use BF to calculate Energy in eV. The significance of f13 being double f1 is the relationship between the "octave" and resonance (see my matrix in Math .. TOE thread).
gadfly
Hi TRoc

To clarify one of my questions - Is the BF method a time-independent rather than time dependent method of deriving Energy?

The units of measure should NOT influence this concern.

Thank you for introducing me to this method. I was unaware of it.

I am NOT very surprised that BF has some merit since the Schrödinger Equation is also a wave.

I have concerns about your statement:
QUOTE
The only probability that I want in MY science is 100%!

The Uncertainty Principle of Matrix Mechanics by Heisenberg probably will NOT allow for 100% certainty. There likely will always be a need for +- tolerance in measuring any scalar or vector entity.

Ending with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
TRoc
Gadfly,


Your question is apparently simple, but I'm not able to give a simple answer. The BF EQUATION does not include a time parameter. However, its' main player is frequency, which , by definition, is OVER time. The designation of Hertz implies "per second"; it is similar to saying "speed". The BF METHOD or concept does "use time". The 2, or more, frequencies involved must exist in some overlapping moment of time and space. The UNITS of measure of time are not important, as you said.

The concept of BF, as far as I know, came from piano tuners (the profession). A piano, known to be in tune, was brought into the same SPACE as a piano that was out of tune. The tuner struck the same frequency keys on both pianos at the same time, and by simply counting the "vibrations" that were subsequently heard, knew EXACTLY by how many Hz the needed to add or subtract from the out of tune piano. Striking them at the same time gives the tuner the longest length of time to hear the BF. It is not absolutely necessary to strike them into existence at the same time. However, you obviously could not wait for 5 minutes between striking the 2 keys, because the vibration of the first would be over (not exist).

So, in summary, any vibration that is continuous in existence, sharing space with another vibration, will produce a third vibration. This third vibration will only last for the time they are in the same space, and then will begin to fade. Note that if NOTHING were acting on this 3rd vibration, it should continue forever. I think that in real terms, this never happens, because there is always another vibration around. With sound, the atmosphere "dampens" the time of existence of the BF, the same as it does for notes played on an acoustic instrument. This is actually PERCEPTION because the BS is lowered/raised below/above our ability to hear. This would take more time than we realize; the overtones would continue until the longest wavelength was reached. (universal equilibrium) For "light" (EM Waves), the same applies. Think about "pair production": the pair "recombines" two resonant frequencies because they are in the same space.


more later...


TRoc

Guest
Back again. Sorry.

Troc - thanks for your dignified response to my plea for some 'maths'.

For the purposes of this thread I think it would be fair to sum up Troc's view as "Electricity and magnetism are NOT bubbles".

On the "Bubble or not Bubble" question..
(Thanks to Wikipedia)
A thought experiment one can do to show this (equivalence of electrostatic/magnetic attraction) is with two identical infinite and parallel lines of charge having no motion relative to each other but moving together relative to an observer. Another observer is moving alongside the two lines of charge (at the same velocity) and observes only electrostatic repulsive force and acceleration. The first or "stationary" observer seeing the two lines (and second observer) moving past with some known velocity also observes that the "moving" observer's clock is ticking more slowly (due to time dilation ) and thus observes the repulsive acceleration of the lines more slowly than that which the "moving" observer sees. The reduction of repulsive acceleration can be thought of as an attractive force, in a classical physics context, that reduces the electrostatic repulsive force and also that it is increasing with increasing velocity. This pseudo-force is precisely the same as the electromagnetic force in a classical context.

Conclusion (my own)..

IF one accepts relativity (no need for this).. then an analysis of 'charge' would be sufficient and complete to answer the question posed.

We could then reduce the question to -
"Are charges Particular or Bubbular?".

At some point it would then be reasonable to ask whether 'bubble analysis' sheds any light on the properties of charges? If yes then what?

E motionally,

Confused2.
Confused2
Sorry, forgot to log in .. That Guest really was Confused2. - C2
gadfly
Hi Confused2

With due respect NO one has yet ruled in or ruled out the possibility of “bubbles” in electromagnetism or other forces in the broadest rather than the narrowest meaning of that term.

I certainly do NOT know the final answer.

However I am intrigued by the following uses of the term ‘bubble’.

1 - “Do different parts of the universe expand by different amounts, such that our universe is a single inflationary bubble of a much larger multiverse?”
This statement is in the last paragraph of ‘Misconceptions about the Big Bang’ by Charles H Lineweaver and Tamara M Davis [astronomers at Mount Stromlo Observatory Canberra, Australia] in March 2005 issue Scientific American.
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&...umber=4&catID=2

2 - “Instead of a single sequence of flux decay, the universe thus experiences all possible sequences, resulting in a hierarchy of nested bubbles, or subuniverses.”
‘The String Theory Landscape’ by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski [string theorist UC-Berkeley and Santa Barbara respectively] in September 2004 issue Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...2BA83414B7F0000

3 - Build a Bubble-Powered Rocket!
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/rocket.shtml

4 - Ridged Tracks for Guiding Magnetic Bubbles
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Dec98/NPO20232.html

5 - Feasting Black Hole Blows Bubbles - 6/5/2000
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/...leases/2000/21/

6 - “The heliosphere is the immense magnetic bubble containing our solar system, solar wind, and the entire solar magnetic field.”
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/heliosph.html

The last [6] reference applies to the largest known electromagnet in this solar system.

Bubble is a remarkably common term in physics. Bubble may be thought of as a manifold or a torus.

There is even a website devoted to bubble physics by Kennesaw State University.
http://webtech.kennesaw.edu/jcheek3/bubbles.htm



To all:

This paper ‘Equivalent circuit representation of electromechanical transducers: I. Lumped-parameter systems’ by Harrie AC Tilmans 1996 J Micromech. Microeng. 6 157-76 has a table relating mechanical to electrical quantities.

Table 2. Parameters used in table 1, expressed in terms of the dimensional parameters, the bias conditions, and physical constants. [reproduced in part - symbols omitted]
- Mechanical --------------------- Electrical
- force ----------------------------- voltage
- velocity -------------------------- current
- displacement ------------------- charge
- momentum ---------------------- magnetic flux linkage
- mass ----------------------------- inductance
- compliance ---------------------- capacitance
- Viscous resistance (drag) ---- resistance
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0960-1317/6/3/009

Ending with -
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein
TRoc
All,


To finish your questions, Gadfly, and perhaps address confused2 (and GE, and...), let me say this.

I am laying out a logical attack on PARTS of our Science that I disagree with. It is not enough to just say "such and such is bogus". Everybody wants to see a proof.

I think we prefer to see Form following Function; therefore, I am describing what I believe to be the Fundamental Function. It should lead to the Fundamental Form. That is MOST LIKELY a spherical wave, so, no c2, it is not fair to say I am "agi'n 'dem bubbles". I would not railroad Good Elf's thread without due cause. I realize this is dragging on, but just remember the magnitude of this endeavor.

From Gadfly, "The Uncertainty Principle of Matrix Mechanics by Heisenberg probably will NOT allow for 100% certainty."

Let the Gauntlet be thrown! This is a call to Arms!

DOWN with COPENHAGEN!! Rise, O' Phoenix of Logic! We HAVE HOPE!!

OK, dramatics over.

In all seriousness, I can not be part of the group that has given up hope that this can be done. Yes in deed, measuring with vibrations will change "the measurement" of vibrations; yet if we can know the relationship with accuracy, we can still predict the outcome.

How can we say, with any accuracy, WHERE and WHERE/WHAT TIME, a person in the middle of a city of 10 million will be? You can't. HOWEVER, if we hire a private eye to observe this person for a long enough period of time, a pattern may emerge that WILL allow us to predict that "Mr. Jones" will be traveling at 45 mph in a Northerly direction (vector) on Monday at 8:15am, at lat x and long y. This is because, we come to find out that Mr. Jones takes the subway to work everyday at that time, and the subway is a timely system, and Mr Jones leads a lonely life and is excited to go back to work Monday, after a boring weekend. He hasn't missed a Monday EVER in 35 years!

We HAVE enough data on "the system" to deduce the pattern. IF ALL points are known, prediction will be easy. That has been said before. I am saying that we don't need ALL of the data in the Universe, just a handful of the MOST relevant to the task at hand. Yes, I believe that any mass in the universe is "communicating" with all the rest of the mass in the universe, but it is done by a regular pattern, at a specific frequency. Therefore, we should only need the frequencies of the closest, space sharing (sequential in time) vibrations to make an accurate prediction; even the "unprecedented" idea of speed AND position. There is ONLY one set of numbers that can arise from our "system" of measuring DISTANCE over TIME. With these numbers, ONLY one set of resonant rules can apply. These values match our empirical measurements AND our biological PERCEPTION as NOTHING else has or can.

C2, you are "right there" with this idea " The reduction of repulsive acceleration can be thought of as an attractive force, in a classical physics context, that reduces the electrostatic repulsive force and also that it is increasing with increasing velocity. This pseudo-force is precisely the same as the electromagnetic force in a classical context"

BF IS the difference between values. We have too many parameters that all follow from one set of TRUE measurements. You can turn this into Force, charge, mass energy, whatever. I am going to break this down, one by one. I need to show WHERE the perceptive labels were created in order to show HOW we can view them from other "frames of reference".

I do need critical evaluation, so THANK YOU to all who have replied to me!


TRoc

Confused2
QUOTE
(gadfly)
With due respect NO one has yet ruled in or ruled out the possibility of “bubbles” in electromagnetism or other forces in the broadest rather than the narrowest meaning of that term.

I certainly do NOT know the final answer.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.
If you ASSUME the result (ie "electricity" & "magnetism" are bubbles) - what would follow? - does it?
If the skin doesn't come off the cat when you start from one end then turn it round and start again from the other.
Make any sense?
Best wishes,

C2.
gadfly
Confused2

You apparently did NOT read the entirety of my post!

You apparently ASSUME 2 things in error.

1 - You ASSUME that I assume when clearly I have stated only that bubbles may be possible especially when considered as manifolds or tori as many other physicists [especially string theorists] have.

2 - You apparently ASSUME "electricity" & "magnetism", are NOT bubbles.

PROVE IT!

The Magnetosphere and the HelioMagnetosphere are both tori and may be bubbles,

Make any sense? - your argument - NO in either a relative or absolute sense.



TRoc

Good Luck with attempting to disprove one of the foundation equations of Quantum mechanics.

Remember that Heisenberg Matrix Mechanics is equivalent to Schroedinger Wave Mechanics.

I know that I am but a dwarf to those founding giants of this experimentally proved branch of physics, but I suspect that you will NOT succeed.

This does NOT mean that you should NOT try.

You may want to consider using elliptical waves in addition to spherical waves.

I found this website 'EP311 Light & Electromagnetism' from Department of Physics, National University of Ireland that apparently has some curriculum related to your project.
Is this correct - ie - are you studying these type of topics?
http://www.nuigalway.ie/faculties_departme...s/e311syll.html

Best wishes

Ending with -
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein
Confused2
Troc,
Your post was enormously appreciated - even if everyone else hates me!

Hello Gadfly,
The Universe is the enemy here - or at least the one that doesn't seem to want to give up all its secrets. The rest of us are sharing what we know to the best of our ability. I am reasonably sure Good_Elf thinks there is 'something' in bubbles and if so then I totally agree with him. After a month of 'is it bubbles' how about attacking it the other way round - 'it isn't bubbles'. As far as I am concerned it is not a matter of belief it's matter of looking in the right place and getting the best possible leads from the experiments and experience of others. If bubbles don't predict 'anything' then there may be no way to decide between 'bubbles' and 'not bubbles' at this point in time.
I suspect Good_Elf has 'something' - I would be very pleased to see him get it right and published before anyone else does.
Your reaction did prompt me to go through the whole thread again, references and all. The time wasn't wasted.
By all means post your best 'bubble' but please not just anything that just happens to have bubbles in the title.
Best wishes,
Confused2.

Later edit - Good_Elf
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf
Equation 1 (sorry I can't print it - ooh got it!) !!!!!!!! I need to look at this VERY carefully - strong chance it's right which would make me wrong about some of my interpretations of gravitational fields etc. TBA!

The equation.. unsure.gif
user posted image

It goes on to say that the electron interaction is point-like down to scales below 10^-18 m. I don't like this much.

Even later edit - half of me thinks the energy should be linear in e (the charge) not e^2 (the other half doesn't know). Is there a rat in this?
-C2
gadfly
Hi Confused2:

A post about possible virtual wave packet bubbles - then no more bubble posts until I see something that is new to me by an internationally recognized source.

Consider this material from UCLA.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/anomalous-dispersion.html

This is a 2D digram of a wave packet that is in ‘Anomalous Dispersion, not Faster than Light’ by Wang, Kuzmich & Dogariu in Nature 20 July 2000 issue.

To my knowledge the authors are NOT bubble advocates.

I merely wish to to use the image to discuss possible virtual situations.

Most often this is viewed only as a 2D wave packet with a possible virtual wave area.

If however, one can visualize a 3D version of this wave packet, then there may possibly be a virtual volume. This then may become a virtual wave bubble.

A Good Elf post of Nov 10 2005, 12:41 AM contains a dynamic phasor diagram from Kwantlen University College.
http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~mikec/P2421_Not...rs/Phasors.html

If one visualizes this as an architectural digram, then it likely is a helix [or "particle states of helicity"] which some physicists such as Daniel Z. Freedman suspect is significant in mechanics.
"Some beautiful equations of mathematical physics" from 1993 Dirac Lecture.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9408/9408175.pdf

I do hope that your holidays are happy.

Ending with -
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein
TRoc
Gadfly & all,


Once again, you have provided great links to relevant data. I find such timely additions to the conversation prime examples of synchronicity. We should add the nickname of "Data" to your title! (Trekage)


I would like to say that I don't think I will "disprove" either model (Heisenberg Matrix or Schroedinger Wave). I only wish to describe a simpler model. One thing though, is I would agree that you can't predict (2 parameters) of probability waves. As I mentioned earlier, if you can improve "statistical averaging" to an exact science, the whole model changes. Rather than quantizing "energy", I'm just quantizing the dualistic quantities of frequency and wavelength. Good Elf mentioned that I might be quantizing Space-Time, but that certainly wasn't my intention. If you can see the duality of f/w & d/t as true, then maybe this is true? At any rate, that is definitely philosophical, and I will leave it at that.

I realize the differences, but I tend to group spherical and elliptical waves together.

Some comments on your links:

Ridged Tracks for Guiding Magnetic Bubbles

"If the groove is wider than about 1.5 bubble diameters, then a bubble tends to move sometimes along one side, sometimes along the other side, moving back and forth in mostly random fashion as it propagates along the groove. If the groove is narrower than about 1.3 bubble diameters, a bubble remains centered in the groove but propagates more slowly than it would if the groove were wider. The customary groove width of 1.5 bubble diameters is a compromise that entails a little of both slowing down and meandering of bubbles."


Here you see the relationship of the octave (2n) and resonance again. The 1.5 value is a peak of resonance between the octave. You saw what it did in the "triangle" I made for the BB curve. Here it is again. Two distinct results, one from being higher than the resonant point, the other one from being lower. Dimensional changes resulting in the TIME allowed for resonance to do its' work. It is a balance between FORWARD movement, and SIDEWARDS movement. Too much sidewards freedom (latitude) changes the symmetry in the rate of oscillation (f); not enough freedom results in a change in velocity.


From 'EP311 Light & Electromagnetism' from Department of Physics, National University of Ireland' :

This was a "tease", I wasn't able to see the details outlined in the syllabus. It is "the type of topics" I am studying. However, I did pull this link from that site. Look at figure 2, the digital interferometer recordings, using a 37 channel deformable mirror. The first 3 images says it all: at CS = -1 (all ch) you get a "quadrupole" oscillation representation (I'm thinking of the coupled E & M vibrations). At CS = 0, you get "positive" resonance", and at CS = .3 , a "negative" resonance.

I also found the chart on dimensional parameters, bias conditions, and physical constants EXCELLENT. Showing the "duality" created by the different approaches of the specialized branches of Science.

The link to NASA's "Cosmicopia" was OUT OF THIS WORLD! This is our "system bubble" inside of our galactic bubble which is inside of our universe bubble. Clear relations can be seen with the "high speed/low speed" velocities of solar wind streams creating a systemic oscillation. The increased distance from the Sun (increasing BF time) allows the high speed streams to overtake the slower plasma, and create CIR's (co rotating interaction regions). The CIR's are bounded by 2 shock waves (forward and reverse), changing the density, pressure, and magnetic field strength. Similar to a SOUND wave.

Also particularly effective is the image of a Parker spiral (link from first page). This shows the origin of apparent "spin" and direction change of the ENERGY in the wave. Underlying that is a planar spiral wave; it has FOUR lines of preferred direction (resonance, constructive, BF = 0), and FOUR lines of resisted direction (dissonant, destructive, BF = +/- ). [look at the straight lines; they could be described by 2 dimensions, whereas the areas most "curved" would need 3]?

user posted image

This spiral wave could COUPLE with another spiral wave AT 90 DEGREES, and maintain the SAME 4 LINES OF RESONANCE/4 LINES DISSONANCE. They would not have to be the same size, just "in phase". This allows for the IMBALANCE in the electric to magnetic relative force ratio. The straight lines go on until changed by another "surface"; the non-preferred (dissonant) lines fade with time (fade as distance increases), and stay on the outside of the wave. What "remains" in the middle is spherical waves: creating virtual "bubbles".

Speaking of bubbles, this link shows some interesting things about making bubbles in zero gravity, including how LARGER bubbles "absorb" smaller ones. Watch the NASA videos, including a COLOR MIXING in zero G, and in the absence of diffraction. Blue+Green+Red+Yellow+Violet=GREEN !! That seems to disagree with the current model (but not mine) wink.gif

Good Stuff!


TRoc

Good Elf
Hi TRoc, Gadfly and Confused2,

Just touching base and showing I am still interested in this discussion... I was particularly intrigued by the NASA soap bubble experiments mentioned above.
Saturday Morning Science
They were very telling and illustrate some fundamental ideas in zero gee. The other aspect of all this is the way "flatlands" may respond to various phenomena. It makes you wonder just how actual "bubbles" would respond in "controlled' zero gee.

That earlier post of mine indicates the frequency of resonance of a bubble and I wonder just how this might be modified in zero gee.
earlier in this thread... Good Elf
Two posts under that one shows what spherical harmi=onics can do to deform these surfaces... I wonder if an analogy can be drawn from these spherical harmonic inages for soap bubbles???

As a closing laugh...
QUOTE
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."    — Bill Cosby.


Cheers
Confused2
Hello Gadfly, Troc and Good_Elf ,

I had hoped to try to turn some of the 'maybe's into 'yes' or 'no'. Regardless of my intentions the only thing that is certain is that it has gone horribly wrong. I can assure you no cats have been hurt and I would never deliberately hurt another living creature. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.

For the purposes of this thread you views are of far greater value than any internationally recognized source because 'they' are almost certainly trying to answer some other question.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm looking for a bubbles (preferably electromagnetic in origin) that seal themselves, some sort of boundary 'mechanism' which is independant of the units chosen. To me it is looking as though the 'field' that might contain the bubble tends to put the energy outside the bubble - which is the wrong answer.

Many thanks for the references. It is me who will not be posting until I've got to grips with the Freedman reference suggested by Gadfly.

Best wishes,

Confused2.
Good Elf
Hi confused2, TRoc and Gadfly,

The confinement of dimensional "bubbles" has no "absolute" direct analogy to soap bubbles. I would compare what I was saying before to what I am thinking presently about confinement...
Unifying Relativity and QM - A Breakthrough? - 1
Unifying Relativity and QM - A Breakthrough? - 2
I would stress that dimensional traps are not quite the same as "boxes" or normal "cavities" we are used to normally. They are also in "Uberspace"... this endows them with "unique properties" and establishes the concept of "quantum". The idea is not fully fleshed out yet. The article on "Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics" as is the paper by Shen... Jian Qi Shen's Original Paper... can be most instructional in understanding why a number of points are required to successfully trap not only electrons but photons. There is a definite possibility that a very special "cavity" can be constructed that may be reached by tunneling.

I am intrigued by Freedman's Paper and its collection of ideas... as Gadfly has suggested. It is a bit of a "grab bag" but I am trying to get some insight from what is written there... not necessarily the exact points that are contained in it.

The concept of "inside" or "outside" the bubble is not the question IMHO... it is the "hyper-surface" of the object described and the connection it has with other spaces. Extra dimensions are "more connected" than ordinary three dimensional space.

One of the big problems with "bubbles" is that they are non-linear and cannot be analysed using linear algebra... a drawback that is quite "profound".

Cheers
gadfly
Hi Good Elf, Troc and Confused2

Time to take a break from posting to these forums and enjoy the holidays from now until the New Year.

There is much information to digest from these recent post.

Happy Holidays to everyone. See you next year.

Ending with -
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein
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.