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: john on 18 Jul 2010 11:38 Clearly the idea of a distinct particle being nothing more that a point is untenable. How can a point have any attributes at all? Why would one point be any different from another point? Yet when I suggest an electron has structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on involving energy radiation and absorption at a much smaller scale, I am accused of 'word salad'. What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? john galaxy model for the atom
From: Jacko on 18 Jul 2010 13:11 Inside a massive object which lowers the speed of light is a point that has the lowest speed of light. As photons will tend to accumulate there, the point will be surrounded by a locality of increasing energy density, and hence an increasing mass, and hence an increasing density. the question then becomes given the balance between photon esacape and absorbtion of any such point what becomes the catastrophic collection radius? And is there a mini black hole at the cetre of all massive objects, unseen because it is internal to the massive object? Now if the black hole is smaller than the wavelength of light approximatly hitting it, the permiability due to the spacewarp will be massivly different around the hole, and a strip line reflection model of the light would be appropriate. The light being capable of moving the minihole out of the way of complete absorbtion. As gravity can be modelled by a phase delay due to the slower speed of light, in essence captured light can behave as a slower speed particle with mass. Given that orbital stability is a construction of the wavelength, only certain energy modes of these particles will be allowed, leading to an exchange balance between modes and captured masses. Any thoughts?
From: Jacko on 18 Jul 2010 13:17 http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring Uncertain Geometry (free to download)
From: john on 18 Jul 2010 13:21 On Jul 18, 11:11 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inside a massive object which lowers the speed of light is a point > that has the lowest speed of light. As photons will tend to accumulate > there, the point will be surrounded by a locality of increasing energy > density, and hence an increasing mass, and hence an increasing > density. the question then becomes given the balance between photon > esacape and absorbtion of any such point what becomes the catastrophic > collection radius? And is there a mini black hole at the cetre of all > massive objects, unseen because it is internal to the massive object? > > Now if the black hole is smaller than the wavelength of light > approximatly hitting it, the permiability due to the spacewarp will be > massivly different around the hole, and a strip line reflection model > of the light would be appropriate. The light being capable of moving > the minihole out of the way of complete absorbtion. > > As gravity can be modelled by a phase delay due to the slower speed of > light, in essence captured light can behave as a slower speed particle > with mass. Given that orbital stability is a construction of the > wavelength, only certain energy modes of these particles will be > allowed, leading to an exchange balance between modes and captured > masses. > > Any thoughts? There is energy coming from all directions which is absorbed by protons. As the size of the planet/star increses, it reaches a point where ALL the energy is being blocked/ absorbed, and the surface gravity no longer increases as size of planet increases. The planet will behave as if it has much less mass than it does, because this central mass is invisible gravitationally. john
From: Jacko on 18 Jul 2010 13:49
Miniholes do not have mass, they have space warp due to photon energy density internally. Photons bend but no mass yet. The capture dilated orbital photons have a pase lag, and provide mass effects. in this sense maybe a minihole is the neutral electron of Hiem theory. Not many of them will be found unbound to photons, while being 'detected'. The question then becomes how do neutrons and protons come into being? A positron-electron pair bound to a sub-neutron make a neutron, and a proton is when an electron is spitted out. The coriolis induction of a passing electron would induce a non parity ejection energy in the passed neutron's electron, leading to cascade bariogenisis, from neutron soup. So a sub-neutron is? A bigger minihole? Why would various sizes of minihole occur, and is there a mechanism for unstable sizes to transform into stable sizes? |