point particle vs particle with structure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Quantum Gravity 402.4: One-Way Entanglement in Expansion-Contraction
From: Jacko on 23 Jul 2010 11:16 I may have solved the uncertainty issue by an abstract uncertainty force. The mass dilation comes out right too. A new constant omega is introduced (not proved constant). http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring I've started the development of singularity free numbers (a.k.a offset symetric numbers) which would appear to be a candidate for spinning the complex axis arround the 0.5 unit. If you know of anyone investigating electroweak or strong force interaction is reletivistic geometries I would be most interested. Cheers jacko
From: john on 23 Jul 2010 12:34 On Jul 23, 8:34 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Jacko > You are correct > > I cant believe we are still stuck on this point particle, > probability wave model of the electron. > Overwhelming evidence that speaks for itself, clearly shows that > electron is a backward spinning (-1 charge ), standing spherical wave, > making two rotations to complete one wave cycle (spin1/2), with > angular momentum of (h/2pi/2). > > This came about in part because of geometrical interpretation of > (E=mc^2), which shows that c^2 is not just mathematical conversion > factor of energy to matter, with no geometrical structure, but is in > fact c in the linear direction times c in the 90 degree angular > direction, creating a 90 degree arc trejectory, which if constant > creates a circle of energy = (cx2pi) with angular momentum (h/2pi), > and if amplitude is constant will make 2 rotations to complete 1 wave > cycle (spin ½) , will have angular momentum of (h/2pi/2), and if spin > is counter to trajectory, will have (-1 charge). > > As these are same as empirically verified dimensions of electron, it > is highly improbable that this geometrical interpretation of c^2 > does not correspond to that of electron as well, and as such, > deBroglie's, E=hf=mc^2, which indicates a smooth transition of > photons to electrons, along the same EM spectrum, which may also be > called the (energy/matter) as well as the electromagnetic spectrum as > well as E=mc^2 is given a geometrical form. And as a geometrical > picture is worth a thousand words and equations. This geometrical > interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains and conveys much more info that > the equations alone as it does indeed give these equations physical > form. > > PD, inertia, artful and the like have some vested interest in the > point particle model. But this model in on its way out and so are its > proponents if they dont get in step with the time. > > SEE:http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf > > Conrad J Countess If you would like to see numerous animations and drawings of this one spin versus two precessions which forms the basis for the Galaxy Model for the Atom go here: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john especially a classical model for Methane using this system: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/methane%20animation.html john
From: cjcountess on 23 Jul 2010 14:50 John I like your model of gyroscopic spin as representitive of electron spin. Jacko The model that I present also shows that (h/2pi/2), which is said to be measure of uncertainty in the "point particle, probability wave" model, proves to be the certain measure of electron in this model and as such cancels the "uncertainty priciple". But it also brings (sqrt-1) out of realm of imaginary numbers into world of natural real numbers as it is shown geometricaly that "c" or speed of light = natural unite "sqrt of natural unite -1" or electron. Furthermore it shows that as (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled and/or sphered), c^2 is revealed to be freqency/wavelength at which a lightwave attains enougth enrgy/mass to attain gravity rest mass. And so (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) on quantum level as same force that conpresses energy into matter at (E=mc^2) also pushes matter particles togather at (F=mv^2). (c^2) in equation (E=mc^2) is the ultimate (v^2) in equation (F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2) and equals (L/T^2) which is also measue of gravity or (G). Quantum gravity was right under our noses all the time it was just a matter of seeing E=mc^2 geometricaly to see that energy aquires grivity rest mass at c^2 because it aquires circular and or spherical motion, through a balence of "centripital/centrifugal" forces, which is "c" in linear direction times "c" in 90 degree angular direction which is (c^2). This is also where it attains its own Swartzchild radious, which by definition is the radious at which energy becomes trapped within its own graviy field. The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1) is a vary rich concept and is leading to a wave of other discoveries Conrad J Countess
From: Jacko on 23 Jul 2010 15:41 Modelling a thing without uncertainty, has the slight problem that although the model may not have uncertainty, we see uncertainty. The width/size/shape of an electron being one uncertain length does not 'accuratly' model uncertainty, it just truncates all results to one error interval, instead of taking into account other degrees of freedom in the location of the error, and possible knowledge of the uncertainty spectrum. Try quantum entanglement. There is also no explination of what mass is, as inertia has not been shown. The E=mc^2 mass may be explained, but there needs to be shown the summation integral representing the mass effect at a point location external to the electron, or between two electrons, seperated with distance d and some demostration of 'inertia' under this force. There is good evidence that this may be possible based on some of the work on electro-gravitics I have seen based on an estimate shape of the electron being a donut of closed centre. That's about my critisisms of the work in terms of applicable theory.
From: john on 23 Jul 2010 15:57
On Jul 23, 1:41 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Modelling a thing without uncertainty, has the slight problem that > although the model may not have uncertainty, we see uncertainty. The > width/size/shape of an electron being one uncertain length does not > 'accuratly' model uncertainty, it just truncates all results to one > error interval, instead of taking into account other degrees of > freedom in the location of the error, and possible knowledge of the > uncertainty spectrum. Try quantum entanglement. > > There is also no explination of what mass is, as inertia has not been > shown. > > The E=mc^2 mass may be explained, but there needs to be shown the > summation integral representing the mass effect at a point location > external to the electron, or between two electrons, seperated with > distance d and some demostration of 'inertia' under this force. There > is good evidence that this may be possible based on some of the work > on electro-gravitics I have seen based on an estimate shape of the > electron being a donut of closed centre. > > That's about my critisisms of the work in terms of applicable theory. The electron is the same structure as a simple arm of a spiral galaxy. It extends from center to edge of the sphere while being more or less extended as to spiral shape. It is composed of radiating bodies- millions of them. These radiating bodies repel themselves asd well as their protons and radiate in all directions. The 'matter field' so produced is responsible for our gravity. It is a repulsive force a la Lesage john |