Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[Erasmus00]

OK in the Uber Force equation I eliminate the m from it, because like with the photon, it is eliminated in the definition. It's there, but it's invisible because of cancellation. 1 kg/1kg is = 1 kg. Suffice it to say that at this scale, mass has very little meaning (expecially being dependent on dual field systems, IE Electromagnetic Matter).

 

Just because things have very little mass doesn't mean that you can ignore the fact that its in the deffinition of force. Even if mass is small, you can't simply ignore the fact that the units on your equation don't match. In fact, if mass goes to 0, the whole right half of your equation must go to 0.

 

If it wasn't noticed earlier, [math]m = q r^2/t^2[/math].

 

This doesn't work in terms of units either! Mass is not in units of charge*length^2/time^2. Dimensionally, you have a big problem.

 

Mass is good and all for things that are classical in nature, however is ill suited for creatures like the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino. Which are massless in my model...

 

There are theoretical (as well as the obvious experimental) reasons that neutrinos must have mass. Neutrinos oscillate (feel free to wiki neutrino oscillations for more details), which implies different types have different masses, none of which are exactly 0.

 

The reality is that Monopoles have no "mass", only (non-classical) charge.

 

Work has been on the magnetic properties of the neutrino, and it doesn't behave like a magnetic monopole, but a dipole (as all fermions do)? A lower bound has been put on its dipole moment, though I'm unware of the current bound (the experiment I'm aware of is Derbin from 1994, so I'm sure more recent work has been done).

 

I'm curious as to why you believe neutrinos are somehow magnetic monopoles?

-Will

[IDMclean]

You misunderstand a few key points.

 

First is this:

Photon = mass = 1. A photon is the quanta of mass/energy. the lowest level photon, the zero-point state, is the number 1 of "mass"

 

Mass is a function of Charge North Pole/ Charge South Pole. Neutrino is the North Pole, and Anti-neutrino is the South Pole.

 

Redefinition Warning: Mass is defined in this model as being equal to [math]Mass = q r^2/t^2 = Energy[/math]

redefinition Warning: [math]Force = \frac{q_tr^1/t_f^2}{q_fr^1/t_t^2}[/math]

redefinition Warning: [math]Energy=\frac{\epsilon_r\mu_r}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

The mass of a Neutrino in this model would Appear to be valid, however it would Oscillate, as the neutrino moved through a medium.

 

Because the Glove fits. The neutrino exhibits unusual properties. Which, in thought experiment, match what I would expect from a Monopole. I am striving to produce a mathematical model which will either verify this or prove it to be faulted. The problem in proving it comes from that in my model, anything that we can use to measure it is going to give odd data. The current model does not take into account the possiblity of Singular field propagating through space. We know what to expect of EM waves, but do we know what to expect of E or M only. My little point particles, when moving and interacting will form wave patterns.

 

They have a definite center, and velocity, they are ridgid bodies, and subject to relativistic effect. They move at c, they are "massless" more so than the photon. The photon is two or more of these little guys in equal purportion. Mass is a Classical, Flawed, concept. Useful on the above dual field propagation, but not usefull in the description of single field. My little buggers make up everything else.

 

How does one come to this conclusion? Neutrino + Anti-Neutrino = Photon. Electron + Positron = 2 Photons. Neutrino Left Handed Chilarity, Only. Anti-Neutrino Right Handed Chilarity, Only. Photon, Absolute Chilarity.

 

Monopole, North (Up and out, Right handed), South(Down and In, Left Handed).

 

Disclaimer: the math in this might be buggy, I haven't been working on it for to long compared to the Theory. (Concept = 5 years) (Math = 1 year)

[Erasmus00]

First is this:

Photon = mass = 1. A photon is the quanta of mass/energy. the lowest level photon, the zero-point state, is the number 1 of "mass"

 

You seem to be the one with the misunderstanding. First of all, energy isn't always quantized, it completely depends on the situation and the boundaries. Consider that a free electron has a continuous spectrum of allowed energies.

 

Second, photons are only come from the quantization of the electromagnetic field. As such, they are unfit to describe mass in general. (as photons have no rest mass. Hence the need to postulate a Higg's field or some other mechanism).

 

Mass is a function of Charge North Pole/ Charge South Pole. Neutrino is the North Pole, and Anti-neutrino is the South Pole.

 

Not if by charge you mean the thing we usually associate with the electromagnetic field.

 

Redefinition Warning: Mass is defined in this model as being equal to [math]Mass = q r^2/t^2 = Energy[/math]

 

First, mass obviously doesn't have the same units as energy. One has the extra length^2/time^2 units. Unless of course we are operating in units where c = 1, in which case what is the r or the t in the above equation. Also, the q in this equation obviously has nothing to do with what we usually call charge, so what is it?

 

redefinition Warning: [math]Force = \frac{q_tr^1/t_f^2}{q_fr^1/t_t^2}[/math]

redefinition Warning: [math]Energy=\frac{\epsilon\mu}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

By your above deffinition, energy is not unitless (having units of mass). By your last equation energy is unitless. This is clearly not consistant. Also, without defining the various qs and how we measure them, this is a tad useless.

 

Because the Glove fits. The neutrino exhibits unusual properties. Which, in thought experiment, match what I would expect from a Monopole.

 

What thought experiment? What unusual properties? If neutrinos acted at all like monopoles, people attempting to measure the dipole moment would certainly have noticed. You can't just claim, with no justification at all, that neutrinos are secretly monopoles. You need some sort of theoretical or experimental justification, which you seem to have none.

 

We know what to expect of EM waves, but do we know what to expect of E or M only.

 

A traveling E wave with no magnetic component or a traveling magnetic wave with no electric component would violate Maxwell's equations, which are extremely well tested. You have given no reason to expect that Maxwell should be violated.

 

On a side note: when people develop physical theories, they don't simply start writing down equations haphazardly, introducing all kinds of new parameters. They start from a few simple considerations, and use math to guide them. You have a lot of redeffinitions, and you never define what exactly you mean by q, or q_t, or q_f, etc. You aren't giving any motivation or physical meaning to your equations.

-Will

[IDMclean]

I have in fact shown where those definitions arise from.

 

q_t has the properties of:

1 charge(+q classical), with (Right Handed Chirality, this is somewhat Arbitary, but arises from the assumetion that the Neutron is infact a net charged particle. Due to other Definitions. The Neutron, when it decays produces an Anti-Neutrino, what to name either one is somewhat confused at this moment.)

 

q_f has the properties of:

1 charge (-q by classical), with Left Handed Chirality. See above for convention issues.

 

The thing that distiguishes each is the Chirality of the Particle. This Chirality is absolute, like with the Photon (the photon being q_t/q_f = 1).

 

The Photon's zero state, is the lowest state of energy that can arise. It is the 1 state. [math]\gamma_0 = 1 E[/math] [math]Neutrino = 1/2E[/math] [math]Anti-Neutrino = 1/2E[/math]. For our monopoles, which in this model define energy, the mass-energy (interchangable concepts) of our monopoles is actually given quantumly as a probability, where it's distribution is deteremined by the medium it is traveling through. The rest Mass of the Neutrino/Anti however is zero, as they can never be at rest. Like Photons, Magnetic Lines (wave is variance over distance and time.) propagate at c.

 

This is due to our little quanta being exactly equal(in properties) but opposite (in position, as in spacially). Our little Quanta are point particles, that exert a field of influence, out to a distance of c Absolute, this is the same in all frames of reference.

 

q in my mass definition is the remained of charge, or the charge imbalance. it is either + or -, it is never 1 exactly, otherwise it is photonic.

 

I would like a deeper explination of how this all would violate maxwell's Equations. As it was maxwell's equations that helped me to arrive at where I am, them and Lorentz force law.

 

people attempting to measure the dipole moment would certainly have noticed

i am saying the issue is in that the device, any device we use to measure will give odd results, as the only way that the device intereacts with the given little monopoles is through an imbalance in the monopole distribution through the given medium. Which will always yield Mass like results. Why?

 

[math]F = qB\frac{v}{c}[/math]

[math]F = qE[/math]

[math]\sum F = q(E + \frac{v}{c}B)[/math]

 

All of that deals strictly with classical matter. matter that contains both Electric and Magnetic Properties. it does not account for the possiblity of single field properties. It's like trying to figure out of two blackholes, whom are exactly the same in propert, excepting their spin direction, which one eats whom.

 

The issue of isolating one or the other Monopole arrises from a fundemental issue in Physics itself.

 

That is Dependent origin. No obeservation is independent of the Observer. Our Monopoles would be exceedingly hard to measure because they defy a number of our generally accepted normal methods of analysis.

 

You can't capture them in a box, because any box you make will interact with them and make them somewhat metamorphic, the monopole in the box for instance will immedatiately orent itself so as to compliment the box's dipole moment. so obersevation of it would reveal it as a dipole creature. Beyond that is that only half (if not less) of the given bodies within the material of the box it's self would interact in an attractive way, the other half would happily eject the monopole from the box.

 

These little buggers are schordinger's particles. you can't say they are one way or another until you open the box and look at them, at which point you change the results. They are truely Quantum in that respect.

[Tim_Lou]

i think perhaps what was lacking was the focus on one final equation.

 

for any theory, there should be ONE or one set of master equations, where from these equations, all others are derived.(i apologize if i missed it in other posts; the focus was kinda vague for me). for example, einstein has his field equation, maxwell has his maxwell's equation, planck has his E=hf, schrodinger has his wave equation. (one equation is worth a thousands words...i think many people would find equations much easier to understand and it will be much more applicable) including newly defined constants and their meanings?

 

i looked over your posts and i see a lot of newly defined symbols without explanations. Perhaps you can tell us what exactly "relative quantum charges" are? and as an example what "relative quantum charges" do electrons have? what are the reasons and motivations of these newly defined things?

 

new definitions are useless if they are merely introduced for mathematical reasons without physical significances. (lorenz was critized for his unexplained "lorenz factor" until einstein came alone)

 

And maybe you can work out some of the following examples in an orderly fashion:

how can one calculate the charge of an electron from your theory? the mass of an electron? or the mass and charge of a proton? why Bhor's model of hydrogen is correct? why masses exhibit wave properties? and why in the quantum level, things are discrete? and the modified version of Einstein's GR theory that agrees with quantum physics?

 

the existences of 4 (why 4?) forces and the fundamental equations for these forces? or an equation relating all forces to fundamental properties and constants?

 

*even though i might not be able to comprehend them; hopfully, someone else will.

[IDMclean]

Tim Lou, thank you. That is useful critique. Those are good questions, and sadly at this time I am not capable, do to software reasons to puzzle out the Quantum Charge of the Electron.

 

Relative, is applied because the motion of the Particles in an orbit about one another is relative in nature. Each body in the system can be concidered the "rest" frame, as can the mutual attraction point.

 

Quantum Because various rules of quantum mechanics play part in the whole thing. In my model due to the assumetion that we are talking about absolute particles here, Heisenberg Uncertainty is going to play a key role here. Like for instance, one thing that is known about my little hypothetical fundementals is that they are Ferminons with Absolute Chilarity/polarity/handedness/whatever, and therefore are subject to the Pauli Exclusion priniciple. They have no true boundry definition, as of yet, and as such are currently concidered Avolumetric, or without spacial definition beyond positional designation relative to other particles.

 

Due to them being monopoles, one must exhibit, in hypothesis, repulsive force, and the other must exhibit, in hypothesis, attractive force. Their magnetic field lines may not curve back apon themselves, as they must connect with other Particles... though I have some thoughts that may make that a 90% of the time kind of thing, mostly what arrises from the Blackhole Phenomena.

 

In theory, what we call electric may infact simply be Magnetic in a bound state, such that a relatively stable oribit has been made of both polars.

 

 

 

I would like it if the terms that are undefined, or not explained fully were brought to the front. I would be more than happy to attempt to explain any part of my theorm, I just ask that you try to understand that my theorm may not jive completely with ST, and I may have some definitions that mess with old definitions.

 

including newly defined constants and their meanings?

 

I wasn't aware that I define any new Constants, except that of fundemental Charge, which I do not yet have a SI unit for it, and it remains equal to 1.

 

Mainly my theorm is a re-interrupitation of ST with some minor adjustments for internal consistancy.

[Tim_Lou]

perhaps you can explain in details to us what

[math]q_B[/math] and

[math]q_E[/math] are?

and their definitions using an equation or clarify if they are fundamental properties of fundamental particles?

and their relationship with mass, charge, spin...etc mathematically?

and how they can be measured? in agreements with other well verified equations (GR and QM)?

 

 

one of your equation says that E is inversely proportional to t^4, what exactly is this t referring to? time? time in what reference and if it is time; as "time" goes on, the energy decreases to zero or something? if as time goes on, Energy changes, is the conservation of mass-energy violated?

 

and what is

[math]\gamma[/math] and [math]\gamma_q[/math]?

(is this the gamma in special relativity?)

 

i see your theory is based on the hypothesis that all things are made up of 2 "particles" orbiting each other, am i correct? if so, what made you think that way? what are the resons behind it and what problem does it solve?

 

The most important thing about theories is that they solve something. Most theories are based on inconsistency on experimental data or phenomena, maybe your theory is based on some of these inconsistencies?

 

Since this is a theory, people will be extremely skeptical viewing it. there must be solid proves, evidences on the existences of these orbitings "things" and the so called "relative quantum charge"

 

and also for a Unified theory, it must address the issue between QM and GR, and the four forces.

 

Its a lot of questions, but theory is all about questions answering, isnt it? (another question :hihi: )

[Tim_Lou]

[math]\gamma_m \equiv \gamma_qv^2[/math]

What can be concluded from this Definition is that the Photon is not infact Massless, so much is equal to 1 mass.

 

Force:

[math]\Sigma F = \gamma_m a = q(E +vB) = \frac{q_Br^3}{q_Et^4}[/math]

 

Momentum:

[math]\rho = \gamma_m v[/math]

 

here, you re-definied momentum and force. what exactly is the quanity [math]\gamma_m[/math] and how does it reduce to the form

[math]F=ma\gamma^3[/math]

and

[math]p={\gamma}mv[/math]

??

 

also, force is a vector quanity... so is your equation a vector or simply the magnitude? if it is simply the magnitude, what would be the full form (equation) of forces including direction?

[IDMclean]

OK lets restart at the Beginning.

 

(formerly q_B) q_t has the properties of:

1 charge(+q classical), with (Right Handed Chilarity, this is somewhat Arbitary, but arises from the assumetion that the Neutron is infact a net charged particle. Due to other Definitions. The Neutron, when it decays produces an Anti-Neutrino, what to name either one is somewhat confused at this moment.)

 

(Formerly q_E) q_f has the properties of:

1 charge (-q by classical), with Left Handed Chilarity. See above for convention issues.

 

They are fundemental, all properties are zero states. I am uncertain at this time weather or not they are capable of having states above Zero-States. They would have 1/2 spin and 2/1 spin respectfully, if that even means anything at this level, as they do not intrisicly have angular momentum, I don't think anyway. As they are the Reason for angular momentum in all higher order particles, including Photons.

 

Note on my Equations, they are not fully formed, nessessarily. They are rather new even to me, the concept and theory is not new, I have spent nearly 5 years straight working on it, the math however came only in the past few months.

 

Alright as for [math]\gamma[/math], this is Lorentz's factor, part of standard Theory, and Crucial to Distances contraction.

 

[math]\gamma_q[/math] this is the Quantum Charge of a photon, such that it is always a net value of 1, if this changes from 1 to any other number, it is no longer a photon and is defined as having "mass". As now it will exert a drag, and will lose constant motion, if the resulting state is stable then it is defined as a bound Quantum Charge Orbitial system (AKA Mass). This is defined by myself through maths that I can't explain cause I don't have my notes.

[IDMclean]

here, you re-definied momentum and force. what exactly is the quanity [math]\gamma_m[/math] and how does it reduce to the form

[math]F=ma\gamma^3[/math]

and

[math]p={\gamma}mv[/math]

??

 

also, force is a vector quanity... so is your equation a vector or simply the magnitude?

 

this is not written in stone and may be in error. I am not sure as of yet how to describe certain things in mathematical form.

 

I am fairly certain that my original energy equation may have been in error, and as such the proper form most like would be:

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

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

 

Which makes more sense than my original [math]E = c^4[/math], which would be typical of my math, I often have to triple check and then get someone else to check my math, as i will end up with multiplications where I should have Devisions. However Division as I have noted before means Opposite. If we have two bodies moving in the same direction then they are not moving opposite and therefore their quantities would be multiplied, so.

 

[math]\gamma_m[/math] is mass, through redefinition using Quantum Charge/Polars. (I am thinking of adopting that, Polars, as the name, as Charge is a confusing creature for most people, even physicists.) The [math]\gamma_q \not= 1[/math] for [math]\gamma_m[/math]. It therefore has a quantity of one or the other type of Polars in surplus, and therefore is more reactive to one or the other.

 

In classical this would mean that the photon has 0 charge, and the neutron has near-zero charge. The proton I suspect would be mainly composed of + polars, which I believe to be the Anti-neutrino.

[Tim_Lou]

what? E=1??

 

hmm, i think the problem is, all ideas are in your brain, it is quite hard for us to understand what they are without some explicit examples.

 

well, to me many things you said do not make much sense. mostly due to my lack of understandings of many modern topics such as "Chilarity" and "left-right handedness". well i will remain skeptical on your theory, and i wish you luck on connecting your theory with some solid mathematical proofs.

[IDMclean]

Perfect vacuum, the carrot that one can not have.

 

Why is this? Imagine that our little dimensionalless Polars have phantom-like boundries. They exert one type of force in a given direction desearned by their Pole. North Repulses with [math]F_\Omega[/math], and South Attracts with [math]F_\Omega[/math], this field of force propagates out(N)/In(S), in perfect vacuum at a rate of [math]c[/math]. Now these field are reactive to either type. So, what we end up with is a bubble around all matter, all mass.

 

This field though not distictly mass in nature extends out and is interactive with mass. It is not light per se, so it is not visible. It is hard to detect, except when you attempt to detect the properties of the Vacuum, which are innately not matter, in which case it interferes with your attempts to analyze the underlying space-time fabric (if such a thing exists in anything but abstract).

 

So we have a cling issue, a carrot that dangles before our noses that we can not "touch". we have a phantasm that is constantly out of reach, we know (as well as one can know anything) it's there but we can't make any measurements of it. This would seem to be an unsolvable problem.

[EWright]

Perfect vacuum, the carrot that one can not have.

 

Why is this? Imagine that our little dimensionalless Polars have phantom-like boundries. They exert one type of force in a given direction desearned by their Pole. North Repulses with F_\Omega, and South Attracts with F_\Omega, this field of force propagates out(N)/In(S), in perfect vacuum at a rate of [math]c[/math]. Now these field are reactive to either type. So, what we end up with is a bubble around all matter, all mass.

 

This field though not distictly mass in nature extends out and is interactive with mass. It is not light per se, so it is not visible. It is hard to detect, except when you attempt to detect the properties of the Vacuum, which are innately not matter, in which case it interferes with your attempts to analyze the underlying space-time fabric (if such a thing exists in anything but abstract).

 

So we have a cling issue, a carrot that dangles before our noses that we can not "touch". we have a phantasm that is constantly out of reach, we know (as well as one can know anything) it's there but we can't make any measurements of it. This would seem to be an unsolvable problem.

 

Perhaps if you'd stop talking like the Riddler to Batman, making everyone guess what you're talking about, we could understand and relate to what you're saying a little bit better.

[IDMclean]

E = 1 = E = 2E - E = E/E = E.

 

It's mathematics man. I am just observing a definition. You can say it many ways but ultimately it reduces down to two types of equations.

 

Those that equal 1 and those that equal zero.

 

A Quadratic is an example of an equation that equals zero.

In mathematics, a quadratic equation is a polynomial equation of the second degree. The general form is

 

[math]ax^2+bx+c=0,\,[/math]

 

where

 

[math]a\ne 0. \,[/math]

 

The letters a, b, and c are called coefficients: the quadratic coefficient a is the coefficient of x2, the linear coefficient b is the coefficient of x, and c is the constant coefficient, also called the free term.

 

Visit here for information on Chirality:

A phenomenon is said to be chiral if it is not identical to its mirror image (see Chirality (mathematics)). The spin of a particle may be used to define a handedness for that particle. A symmetry transformation between the two is called parity. The action of parity acting on a Dirac fermion is called chiral symmetry.

 

An experiment on the weak decay of cobalt in 1956 showed that parity is not a symmetry of the universe.

[IDMclean]

You ever read about Schrodinger's cat? How about Einstein's Special Relativity, or General Relativity?

 

I am trying to explain extreamely odd concepts here, which are somewhat alien to people's normal mode of thought. I have tried to explain mathematically, but that didn't work. My math isn't anything special. Never been good at it, I can do Algebra 2 and some Trig.

 

I tried to explain it Logically, still am. It's simply a hard subject to explain. Have you ever seen a monopole? held one in your hands? I haven't but I can imagine some properties that such a thing would have.

 

Most of them not the kind of thing that we can simply hold in our hands. Our hands are not capable of feeling them. Our eyes are not capable of seeing them. These are almost ephemerals. So I am laying down Conceptual Examples in attempt to jog one into envisioning what a monopole is.

 

I am doing the best that one person like myself can do, I am sorry if it is confusing, you should try being me for a few hours, makes my head spin. Such is the job of a Shaman.

 

People can not see that which they do not know, without allot of prodding. In my conceptual example above I am attempting to show, through visualization, why it is that we can not measure perfect vacuum, despite such exsisting. It is on par with Schrodinger's cat. It's like a box that you can't look into without determining the outcome. The measurement ruins the measurement. This is my arguement regarding my prime canidates for the Polars, the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino.

 

We measure them to have mass, and this is because we use mass to measure the fundemental that makes up mass but is without mass itself.

 

I speak in Koan because well this is really a question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" if What we know is Electro-Magnetic, and bi-polar. But what makes up the things we know is Magnetic and monopolar, "what is the properties of one pole in perfect vacuum?"

 

I am sorry if my riddles befuddle and confuse, I am sorry if my febble explinations do not suffice, I am sorry if I aggrevate or frustrate. Such is the nature of a true clown. All I can hope for is that in the end those who read what I write laugh.

[Erasmus00]

E = 1 = E = 2E - E = E/E = E.

 

It's mathematics man. I am just observing a definition. You can say it many ways but ultimately it reduces down to two types of equations.

 

Those that equal 1 and those that equal zero.

 

Ummmm.... generally in physics E is a variable. As such, an arbitrary assignment to 1 is essentially meaningless.

 

If you define energy in such a way that everything has the same, it is no longer a useful distinction.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Mass = Mass

 

If we have x quantities of Mass, then 2Mass = 2Mass. A definition is an assignment of a Quality, not a quantity. E is still a variable, however in line with Quantum Physics that is the lowest state of Energy. As you can not have in Quanta fractional, Negative, or Zero Numbers.

 

E = nhf still applies. I am just showing the Definition of energy, as energy is a multidimensional (mass distance squared per second squared) but can simply be expressed in terms of E or J or Whatever unit you decide, but as with all definitions the number always reduces to 1. This is a basic priniciple of Quantization.

 

So in the case that the Permeability and Permittivity are that of Freespace, then the energy in that space is 1. If you have higher Permeability or Permittivity than that of freespace, then your energy rates will be higher as consequence in discreet units of 1E.