Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[arkain101]

right on Kick,

 

I am impressed, whether this is correct or not. You know what your up to.

 

I've been busy, but I am going to look over everything you been posting. Sweet time.

[IDMclean]

I would like to note that the photon is either a double or triple helix, such that if it is viewed head on and displayed on a 2d plane it's orbits would look like circle, however viewed Isometricly it's would look like two or three spirals, like two or three corkscrews.

 

This relates beatifully to the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio.

[IDMclean]

I've been contemplating the [math]q_E = q_B^{-1}[/math] relationship, as it gave me quite a pause, but I believe I have it now, it's all in the property of chirality.

 

such that q_E will be redesignated q_t, and q_B will be redesignated, q_f.

such that their properties shall be equal but opposite in chirality.

[math]q_t, q = 1, spin = 1, chirality = +, r=1, t=2\pi r'[/math](right handed)

[math]q_f, q = 1, spin = 1, chirality = -, r=1, t=2\pi r'[/math](left handed)

such that:

[math]\sum_{i = m}^{n}q_t^m = q_t^m + q_t^{m+1} + q_t^{m+2} + ... + q_t^{m+n}[/math]

[math]\sum_{i = o}^{n}q_f^i = q_f^o + q_f^{o+1} + q_f^{o+2} + ... + q_f^{o+n}[/math]

[math]\sum_{i = m, j = o}^{n}q_t^i/q_f^j = q_t^m/q_f^o + q_t^{m+1}/q_f^2 + q_t^{m+2}/q_f^{o+1} + ... + q_t^{m+n}/q_f^{o+n}[/math]

[IDMclean]

It should be noted that:

[math]c= \frac {1} {\sqrt{\varepsilon_0\mu_0}}[/math]

[math]c^2= \epsilon_0\mu_0[/math]

[math]\not{E_{m0} = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}}[/math]

 

[math]E = \frac{\epsilon_r\mu_r}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

[Erasmus00]

Ok I put forth allot of my ideas and understandings of regarding abunch of subjects if it would be liked I can post links to the threads that I have deemed relevant to this. Me and Arcane were discussing our respective theorys and we believe that we may have come to a breakthrough. As such here is my specualtions so far:

 

The three fundemental states of Matter, as expressed in units of Quantizied Charge:

• First State of Matter: what I call the Exclusive state. It is the quanta state of charge, where Magnetic and Electric are seperate completely.[math] q_B[/math], [math] q_E[/math]. Such that [math]q_B[/math] is equal but oppisite to [math]q_E[/math].
  
• Second State of Matter: what I call the Photonic State. It is the quanta state of Energy, where magnetic and Electric are in perfect balance, such that [math] \gamma_q \equiv n(q_B - q_E) \equiv 0[/math].
  
• Third State of Matter: what I call the Biased State. It is the quanta state of Mass. Such that [math] m_B = n(q_B - q_E) + n_x(q_B)[/math] or [math]m_E = n(q_B - q_E) + n_x(q_E)[/math] and that [math]m_B[/math] or [math]m_E \not= 0[/math]
  

 

Where in Obviously I have split Quantum Charge into two types. Magnetic and Electric. In the APM that was present, these two are known as the Electrostatic and the Electromagnetic. However their Quantum of charge, in my opinion is faulty, as it does not account for the properties of the Neutrino and it's Anti-particle.

 

My hypothesis at current is that the Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino are the carriers of the Quanta of respective Charges. Obviously the Photon and Anti-Photon are the only particles that meet the Photonic State Criteria. All other matter falls into the Third State of Matter.

 

It is to be noted that only the Third State of matter has Mass as a property. This is intentional. Mass in the model presented is a fucntion of the two fields interacting over a distance. I don't have the equations yet for this relationship, however it is in development.

 

I tentively hypothesis that the Classical Equation of [math] E = m_0 c^2[/math] is represented in the model presented as [math]E = (n(q_B - q_E) + n_x(q_B))*\frac{r^4}{t^4}[/math] or [math]E = (n(q_B - q_E) + n_x(q_E))*\frac{r^4}{t^4}[/math]. r is radius, replaceing distance, t is time. This is tentative, as i have forgotten how I arrived at such a conclusion.

 

Anyway that's all I'm sharing for now. I hope this helps feed some hungery minds.

 

This doesn't MEAN anything. You have defined a bunch of stuff, but given no method for finding [math]q_B, q_E, n_x,n,[/math] etc. Also, classical e/m shows us that electric and magnetic properties are intimately related. What justification do you have for seperating them?

-Will

[IDMclean]

Sorry that was incorrect, as I explain later.

 

I had to make refinements as problems like that arose.

[Erasmus00]

Arkain mano I think I messed up when I made that Equation, due to oddities of trying to work with Classical Charge and Quantum Charge at the same time, while splitting them.

 

What is this split? What is the difference between classic charge and quantum charge? How can quantum systems obey the correspondance principle when you have seperated quantum and classical system completely?

 

Also, this post is much like the previous, you define a bunch of stuff, arbitrarily, without discussing what the physical significance of the terms are. What does any of this mean? Can you predict any thing with this? Can you solve an example problem with this?

 

edit: In fact, this sort of defining, followed by a few algebraic manipulations, followed by assertions like "the photon is either a double or triple helix" seem to be the halmarks of this thread. If you want to support your theory, show me one instance where this theory predicts the behavior of some physical object.

 

For instance: use your theory to calculate something simple such as the period of a pendulum of length L, or electromagnetic fields of moving charges, etc.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Ok, This is a unified field theory, so if you want to calculate said pendulum I will refer you to the Classical or Quantum method. Your choice really.

 

Matter is defined as [math]q_{t1}q_{f2}r^2/q_{f1}q_{t2}t^2[/math], such that all matter is charge-like, the difference between the two quantum of Charge being Chilarity. Mass is then defined by Charge. In classical physics this is alluded to through a series of equations, which I will not elaborate on anymore than I have so far.

 

My theorm hinges on a few things, one of which is Magnetic Monopoles. I believe I know where to look. I predict that all matter is made up of two particle types, the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino. I am at this time unsure of exacts but I am working on that, as it is a VERY complex problem. It's like trying to calculate a galaxy by hand, it's going to take a bit. I would like help to either prove or disprove my stated theorm.

 

I understand frustrations and disbeliefs regarding my purposed theorm, however I am at this point interested in having my math checked, as that is the chief purpose of this thread. The Theory is in place and will be explained but I must check the Theory against the Math, and the math is not completely finished yet.

 

Right now I am not going to attempt to substantiate, as I can't. i don't have the predictions at current, and I need help, not critizism. I am asking that people take a leap of faith and assume for a moment that I am correct, build the model, test it, and then ridicule it. It is not constructive in this stage to ask me to 'backup" my claims.

 

I would have to pour out every single source I have ever refrenced from, and just for starters my physics book is over 1500 pages. we can subtract about 600 for home work but that still is more than I want to type at this time. My Quantum Mechanics book is 651 pages long and VERY complex, the first 73 pages alone are simply on vectors and matrices.

 

It comes down to this. If you wish to refute my findings then you need to refute the totality of QT and GR. I simply followed through deconstruction, deductive reasoning, and dimensional analysis to arrive at the conclusions I present here. Admittedly they are not Mathematically tight yet, and it doesn't help that I seem to have miss placed the majority of my notes, but that is the current intention of my brain dump onto this thread for public scrutiny to check and double check my math.

 

It comes down to the force diagram, In dirac monopole theory there has to be two, one for each pole. My theory is that these two monopoles are the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino. My most reassuring "proof" at this time is the neutron and it's decay. The thing that differentiates a Neutron from a Gluon and a Photon is that it has a magnetic moment. My current theory regarding this is that the Neutron has a little buddy that orbits it, an Anti-neutrino. That it is held in a stable orbit by it's binding into the orbitial system of the other particles (which are like-wise made up of orbiting bodies of Magnetic Charge).

 

Over the past few days I have begun to realize that my original split into Electric and Magnetic maybe off or ill worded. That perhaps Electric is an illusion of the two equal but opposite Magnetic Monopoles.

 

I am sorry I don't have my math together enough to stop and explain in detail each facet of Physics and Quantum Physics respectfully. I am trying hard and getting nearly no help what-so-ever.

 

So please, help me.

 

Sources of information:

"Physics for Scientist and Engineers with Modern Physics 4th Edition, by Raymond A. Serway": as part of the Saunders Golden Sunburst Series

"Princibles of Quantum Mechanics 2nd Edition, by R. Shankar"

[Erasmus00]

Ok, This is a unified field theory, so if you want to calculate said pendulum I will refer you to the Classical or Quantum method. Your choice really.

 

Since this is a field theory, use your theory to calculate the fields of moving charges. Predict something new about fields, but make some sort of prediction, even if trivial.

 

Also what you present is a "unified field theory" that doesn't agree with well tested physics: By seperating "quantum charge" and "classical charge" you guarantee the failure of the correspondance principle.

 

Mass is then defined by Charge. In classical physics this is alluded to through a series of equations, which I will not elaborate on anymore than I have so far.

 

Right now, there simply is no proven theory of mass. The Higg's field is a conjecture, but as it stands mass values have to be put in to both classic and quantum theories by hand. Classical physics does not imply any linking of mass and charge.

 

If mass were defined by charge, the proton shouldn't have such a radically different mass compared to the electron.

 

My theorm hinges on a few things, one of which is Magnetic Monopoles. I believe I know where to look. I predict that all matter is made up of two particle types, the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino.

 

Thats absurd. How can neutral particles ever combine in such a way as to produce charge? Charge conservation is one of the cornerstones of quantum and classical physics! You can't violate it at the start of a new theory without good reason.

 

Right now I am not going to attempt to substantiate, as I can't. i don't have the predictions at current, and I need help, not critizism. I am asking that people take a leap of faith and assume for a moment that I am correct, build the model, test it, and then ridicule it. It is not constructive in this stage to ask me to 'backup" my claims.

 

A new theory is only as good as that which it predicts. You said you want help for your theory, and I can offer no more genuine help then pointing out where I think your logic went wrong.

 

It comes down to this. If you wish to refute my findings then you need to refute the totality of QT and GR.

 

Nothing you have written on this thread seems to follow logically from quantum mechanics or general relativity.

 

My theory is that these two monopoles are the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino. My most reassuring "proof" at this time is the neutron and it's decay. The thing that differentiates a Neutron from a Gluon and a Photon is that it has a magnetic moment.

 

You do realize that a magnetic moment produces a dipole field, not a monopole field right? It is a different thing entirely then the idea of magnetic monopoles.

 

I am sorry I don't have my math together enough to stop and explain in detail each facet of Physics and Quantum Physics respectfully. I am trying hard and getting nearly no help what-so-ever.

 

Sources of information:

"Physics for Scientist and Engineers with Modern Physics 4th Edition, by Raymond A. Serway": as part of the Saunders Golden Sunburst Series

"Princibles of Quantum Mechanics 2nd Edition, by R. Shankar"

 

I'm quite familar with the material covered in both of those books. What you are covering is a radical (and in my mind, unwarranted) departure. May I suggest that before you attemp to develop a new field theory you learn some of the old? I'd suggest Classical Theory of Fields by Landau and Lifshitz. And then maybe Quantum Theory of Fields by Stone.

 

edit: fixed some typos

-Will

[IDMclean]

The correspondence princible is preserved i can assure that. I use Orbitial mechanics to describe the workings of Sub-atomic structures. That is where this gets really complex is that we are a talking more than 9 body orbits.

 

Relativity is preserved, and with subsystems, where the whole system is unknown Quantum theory is preserved. All Quantum numbers are strictly conserved.

 

I admit the classical Departure makes for the most difficult part of this all, but it is nessessary to properly quantizes Charge. Also do not make the mistake of NET charge versus Absolute Charge. As mass is defined as a balance of the two Quantum charge types.

 

In classical physics the electric charge is only applicable for conventionally massed objects. The photon as I have repeatedly said is DEFINED by charge. They simply dimensionally cancel out, such that the NET charge of a photon is zero, classically.

 

Zero is a non-quantum number, and as such is not fully descriptive of the phenomena. Hence the symetric break of charge, by chilarity. Also the charge and mass of Neutrinos has not been measured directly, and if my symetric break is correct then the measured ELECTRIC charge of course will be wrong as it is once again looking for something that is dual charge. Like the Photon has zero, classical, mass, the neutrino has zero, classical, Charge. the truth is that the photon is mass 1, and the Neutrino is charge of Left handed chilarity -1. The Anti-Neutrino is charge of Right handed Chilarity such that it is +1.

 

Through this minor change the Forces all go to one. As my Force Diagram shows, I know it lacks math but It's a long road to figuring out exactly what's what.

 

I know my stuff, I have been researching this for five years. I have been studying that Physics book since I was a little over 9. The Quantum text is somewhat new. I may need to make adjustments for it, however this seems like a lesser concearn.

[IDMclean]

As in my model we use orbitial mechanics to describe all matter interactions from the smallest (Neutrino-antineurtino bound dipole states) to the largest (galatic super clusters) it is important to understand exactly what time is.

 

We can replace the Moon and the earth with our two fundemental charges, with equal but opposite Absolute Chalirity. It is important to note that in this picture the Earth is our rest frame, however it is equally valid to view the Moon as the rest frame, in which the opposite would be true, and it is even valid to plot a mean point between the two bodies and use that as our rest state such that the moon and the earth are said to rotate about that axis.

 

Source: Time

 

Thought Experiment: If the Earth in this picture is moving with the velocity of c, and the moon is like wise moving with the velocity of v, what is the distance the earth crosses in one moon revolution?

[IDMclean]

You do realize that a magnetic moment produces a dipole field, not a monopole field right? It is a different thing entirely then the idea of magnetic monopoles.

 

Yes I do. I also realize that the monopole in the Neutron would be bound to it's anti-pole such as to create an overall Dipole.

[Erasmus00]

The correspondence princible is preserved i can assure that. I use Orbitial mechanics to describe the workings of Sub-atomic structures.

 

If you seperate "quantum charge" and "classical charge" you've guaranteed the correspondence principle fails. Quantum behavior cannot go to classical behavior in the proper limits if the two are strictly seperated.

 

Lastly, orbital mechanics fials to describe subatomic structures. A charged particle orbitting will radiate. Hence the need for quantum theory.

 

Through this minor change the Forces all go to one. As my Force Diagram shows, I know it lacks math but It's a long road to figuring out exactly what's what.

 

Your force diagram is just an assertion that hasn't been proven or even well defined. What does it mean for forces to overlap on the diagram? How does this produce new forces?

 

I know my stuff, I have been researching this for five years. I have been studying that Physics book since I was a little over 9. The Quantum text is somewhat new. I may need to make adjustments for it, however this seems like a lesser concearn.

 

The Serway book is an introduction to physics, designed to give engineers a base before they move into more specialized classes.

 

However, without lagrangian or hamiltonian mechanics or any field theory at all it does not prepare you to develop any field theory. Serway (like all undergrad intros) glosses over a lot of subtle points, you'll need to move beyond Serway.

 

Shankar is a good start (though its a bit wordy for my tastes, I like Baym for an intro quantum book), but you'll need some classical field theory, some analytical mechanics, some quantum field theory.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

The Clown Model of Unified Field Theory.

 

This Model must agree with the Findings of ALL physical LAWS, if they violate or redefine THEORY, then that should be fine, as long as they explain why it is that they violate/redefine that theory.

 

Kepler's law and Columb's law follow from Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. You should add to this the following:

 

[math] \hat{H}|\psi\rangle = i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle[/math]

 

which is a slight generalization of schroedinger's equation. Here the H is the hamiltonian operator and i is the complex number and the ket psi is the physical state of the system, as per dirac notation.

 

You should also consider adding Einstein's field equations (at least in certain limits, it has never been tested in the large field limit).

 

[math] G_{\alpha\beta} = 8\pi T_{\alpha\beta} [/math]

 

Here the two index G tensor is the einstein tensor and T is the stress energy tensor. This is in units of G(gravitational constant) =c=1, so called geometerized units.

 

Keeping in mind with this and the Rules laid out for a unified field theory. It comes to be that the Unified Field theory must be fully scalable from the top-down and back up. therefore we must set out and discover what Indescrepancy it is that keeps the Correspondence Prinicible in place, such that there is a Difference between Quantum Mechanics and GR.

 

It isn't the correspondance principle that is the problem. The correspondance principle is what makes quantum mechanics possible (without the principle you have no way to derive any of the theory). Quantum is far more tested then general relativity, given that its easier to test things in the quantum world then the general relativity world. Hence, general relativity is likely the theory that needs correcting.

-Will

[IDMclean]

My basic premise is this. All of physics is based on matter, and mass. All of physics still works on the classical definition of mass. Through Deductive, deconstructionist reasoning I have found that the completely classical definition of mass is lacking as it over looks a few things. It is from the classical definition of mass, both in GR and QT that screws it all up.

 

As such my definition for now of mass is:

[math]E = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

From this I also find that Neither GR or QT have a Quantum of Charge, and as such the Classical Definition of Charge is fundementally flawed, following deductive, deconstructionist reasoning once again.

 

Those two that you contribute have already been examined and included in the theorm, just because something doesn't show up here does not mean that I haven't already concidered it.

 

As I have explained somewhere at "sometime", I have a body of nearly 100 pages of notes and derividations. I have misplaced these notes being a flawed human being that I am.

 

Further I have a very poor short term memory without something to trigger it so much of what I have to say is lost at the moment and I am trying my best to explain something that, at this point, is "complete" without further work. The theorm agrees, I have just in the last two weeks been developing the mechanics portion of it all.

 

It also doesn't help that I have to stop and explain very simple, non-contested physical prinicibles. My theorm arises Purely from laws, and as such has a hard time being proved or disproved, based upon acceptance of or rejection of the given laws.

 

My theorm further more, does not so much predict new phenomena, as it would seem that there is a good probability that as far as the Unification effort is concearned, there is no new things to predict. Only minor predictions of slight alterations to existing concepts and measurements, such as to arrive at purely exact defininitions of various properties of matter.

 

The biggest and seemingly most contriverstial proposition of this theorm is that of Quanta Charge.

[Erasmus00]

My basic premise is this. All of physics is based on matter, and mass.

 

You are already in trouble. If all of physics were matter and mass there would be no need for field theories, which, of course, deal with fields. So, in classical physics you need both fields and mass/matter/particles what have you.

 

In quantum theory, however, it could be said that all of physics is based on fields (as particles become excitations in those fields).

 

Through Deductive, ontological, deconstructionist reasoning

 

Then demonstrate your reasoning, instead of simply making assertions. Also, I have only heard the phrase ontological used in "ontological arguments" being apriori "proofs" of God's existence. Clearly that isn't what you are going for here? I'm also only used to "deconstructionist" in the Derrida sense, so can't figure out what you are aiming for. A bit of elucidation would be nice.

 

As such my definition for now of mass is:

[math]E = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

First, I again point out that [math]\epsilon_0[/math] and [math]\mu_0[/math] are simply relics of a choice of unit. There isn't any real physical meaning to them. Second, what do you mean by epsilon and mu? Is this equation for the energy inside some continuous media? Isn't this equation dimensionally unsound? (energy on the left, dimensionless on the right)

 

From this I also find that Neither GR or QT have a Quantum of Charge, and as such the Classical Definition of Charge is fundementally flawed, following deductive, ontological, deconstructionist reasoning once again.

 

Charges come attached to particles, which are inherently discreet. Hence, even in classical theories there is a "quanta" of charge (that of the charge of the electron).

 

Those two that you contribute have already been examined and included in the theorm, just because something doesn't show up here does not mean that I haven't already concidered it.

 

I was just adding to your "quick reference" list of "laws."

 

It also doesn't help that I have to stop and explain very simple, non-contested physical prinicibles.

 

I haven't asked you to explain any non-contested physical principles, simply asked questions about your theory and made some criticisms where I thought you'd had a problem. You asked for feedback, so I'm giving.

-Will

[IDMclean]

"quanta" of charge (that of the charge of the electron).

 

The electron is not the true quanta though. Also Electrons are not found in every single particle through out the spread.

If mass has charge.

and mass is energy

and charge is quantized

and energy is quantized

but quanta of energy is not quanta of charge

then energy must contain charge.

therefore the electron can't be the true carrier.

 

Deconstruction is used in the examination of fundemental assumetions and definitions. One takes apart each fundemental concept and examines it for overlooked components. I did that with mass and came to the conclusion that it is often over looked that mass has associated with it length, width, and depth. A photon is massless, and has only one spacial dimension associated with it, length.

 

Therefore I concluded that mass was a flawed definition. Mass by definition defined itself according to Volume. Which is odd concidering that EM Fields define themselves in similar fashion. So I went about trying to reconcile Mass-Energy-Charge Equivilancy, and came to the conclusion, through Dimensional Analysis, that Mass was incorrectly Defined.

 

[math]c^2 = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

Therefore I have concluded from the Permeability and Permittivity of a given substance that Mass-energy is defined as:

[math]E = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

The Dimensions ultimately are given as r^2/t^2. However it is to be noted that charge is included, due to measurements of Teslas and Amperes.

[math]E \equiv \frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]