... 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.htm2 - 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.htmThanks 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
16th November 2005 - 07:15 AM
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.
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
16th November 2005 - 02:01 PM
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.aspIndeed, 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
17th November 2005 - 01:49 AM
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
17th November 2005 - 03:37 AM
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
17th November 2005 - 06:50 AM
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
17th November 2005 - 04:43 PM
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
18th November 2005 - 08:35 AM
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 2
Rn 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 2
Rn (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
18th November 2005 - 03:16 PM
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.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
19th November 2005 - 12:01 AM
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE
An electronic engineer's "impulse function"
Ouch ... you are trying to make me feel like a "navvy"
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 signalsThat 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 Theoremand the practical examples of it here with (photon) optics...
Light's Clock... convolutionThen roll back to consider what I mentioned here...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"... don't forget the reference to Wolfram Research Reference to...
Spherical HarmonicsCareful 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....
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
19th November 2005 - 12:29 AM
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
19th November 2005 - 12:35 AM
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
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...
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
19th November 2005 - 12:39 PM
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!
Best wishes,
Confused2.
Good Elf
19th November 2005 - 02:27 PM
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.
Are you referring to the concept of mass and the way it affects the evanescent field of a particle and it's spread?
Cheers
jal
19th November 2005 - 06:23 PM
Hi!
Just wanted to say,"I'm reading and learning your thread".
Jal
TRoc
20th November 2005 - 12:37 AM
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
20th November 2005 - 01:15 AM
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
20th November 2005 - 02:45 AM
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
20th November 2005 - 06:30 AM
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 r
around any source will exit a sphere of larger radius r
a period...
r
- r
/ 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 =
R
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
20th November 2005 - 03:43 PM
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 Analysishttp://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/d...face/index.htmlTo all
Other geophysics websites by Gary A Glatzmaier that may be of interest:
1 - The Geodynamo
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html2 - Magnetic Flip-Flops [with Paul H. Roberts]
http://www.psc.edu/science/glatzmaier.htmlThis 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
20th November 2005 - 05:34 PM
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_theoremGravity
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
20th November 2005 - 08:31 PM
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
.
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
21st November 2005 - 05:07 AM
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"... 
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
21st November 2005 - 12:43 PM
Hi TRoc,
Whew... that is very difficult to digest. I am very unsure that I can follow. Remember I am the "navvy" around here!
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.
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".
"Wo viel Licht ist, ist starker Schatten." ... JW Goethe
Cheers
Confused2
21st November 2005 - 01:34 PM
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
).
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
21st November 2005 - 09:31 PM
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 d
f. 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
©2005Starting 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...
TRoc
jal
22nd November 2005 - 01:04 AM
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
22nd November 2005 - 01:11 AM
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.
Ok, it's up to Troc.
fivedoughnut
22nd November 2005 - 03:46 AM
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
22nd November 2005 - 10:45 AM
Hi TRoc,
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 Cavityand 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
22nd November 2005 - 11:04 AM
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 TopologyOther 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
22nd November 2005 - 01:22 PM
I'll start reading this stuff now......cheers!
fivedoughnut
22nd November 2005 - 02:07 PM
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
22nd November 2005 - 06:35 PM
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.
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
22nd November 2005 - 07:28 PM
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.htmlTo 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.htm2 - 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_bodyOther 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.htmlEnding with -
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Einstein
RealityCheck
23rd November 2005 - 12:57 AM
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
23rd November 2005 - 06:37 AM
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
25th November 2005 - 08:17 PM
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
25th November 2005 - 11:08 PM
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
26th November 2005 - 01:52 AM
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
26th November 2005 - 02:00 AM
Sorry, forgot to log in .. That Guest really was Confused2. - C2
gadfly
26th November 2005 - 04:10 PM
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=22 - “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...2BA83414B7F00003 - Build a Bubble-Powered Rocket!
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/rocket.shtml4 - Ridged Tracks for Guiding Magnetic Bubbles
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Dec98/NPO20232.html5 - 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.htmlThe 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.htmTo 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/0960-1317/6/3/009Ending with -
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein
TRoc
26th November 2005 - 04:39 PM
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
26th November 2005 - 04:47 PM
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
26th November 2005 - 06:52 PM
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.htmlBest wishes
Ending with -
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Einstein
Confused2
26th November 2005 - 09:37 PM
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.pdfEquation 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..
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
27th November 2005 - 01:14 AM
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.htmlThis 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.htmlIf 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.pdfI 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
27th November 2005 - 01:15 AM
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]?
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)
Good Stuff!
TRoc
Good Elf
27th November 2005 - 09:16 AM
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 ScienceThey 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 ElfTwo 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
27th November 2005 - 10:27 AM
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
27th November 2005 - 03:45 PM
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? - 1Unifying Relativity and QM - A Breakthrough? - 2I 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
27th November 2005 - 04:10 PM
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.
so we have...
1/R =2
Js
((2
where 
is the angle in radians. As this value in the real axis goes from the initial zero radians to