Archive for the ‘Physics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

distance and the Aspect experiment

July 3, 2008

An interesting new revelation or two, thinking about entangled particles. Yeah, yeah, I know, that one has been beat to death. But let’s be real clear what the implications are, they are huge–the Aspect experiment is the single best clue we have right now for understanding further into the physics of our existence.

First, let’s summarize what the Aspect experiment shows and does not show. An emitter generates (say) an entangled pair of particles heading in opposite directions. Both particles have (say) two superposed states, the current (watch out, time is a many splendored thing in a relativistic world) superposition of one of the particles is always 90 degrees out of phase with the superposition in the other entangled particle. Now we wait long enough so that the particles travel far away enough from each other that detecting which state one of the particles is in cannot affect the other particle causally (within the speed of light of the distance between the particles). By the nature of quantum mechanics, it is not possible, even theoretically, to know what state the first detected particle resolves to–but as soon as the first particle is detected, the outcome of the detection of the second particle is instantly (non-causally) determined. This effect has been verified over a distance of miles. This is a paradox because while no actual data or information travels non-causally, the phase information does, since it is the phase of the superposed states that determines each particle’s detection result. That is conclusive proof of my idea that particles travel limited by the speed of light, but the particles’ phase information goes at infinite speed. And, the two slit-experiment, Aharanov-Bohm experiment, etc all corroborate this principle, since they demonstrate causal paradoxes that are resolved if phase information travels at infinite speed.

But my new revelation comes from this: note that the entangled state theoretically, experimentally verified, can exist for any finite distance, even, as mentioned, for miles. Holy cow–this most likely means that the *amplitude* of the phase information *never* diminishes with distance (otherwise, there should be some threshold point where the entangled particles would no longer couple). The proof of this would involve determining if the entanglement holds at infinite distance, since only then could a phase amplitude asymptotically approach zero and still be shown to couple or not.

This has a profound impact on what distance means: distance is a property of particles (in particular, only those particles with mass, since photons in their frame of reference travel distance in zero time (zero time, thus zero distance). The Aspect experiment conclusively shows that from our point of view, distance is an illusion–that there is some observation point where all particles are “in the same place” but interact according to this distance property in some cases, and according to phase properties (not affected by distance) in other cases.

And, this points strongly to another result: all waves making up all particles, massless or not, are unitary amplitude. This only makes sense, given that phase information does not diminish the entangled effect with distance. We already know we can have a system with a constant (non-zero) frequency distribution produce either “nothing” (completely randomized phase distribution) or produce a particle (a delta function of some type, if the frequency distribution phases vary as e^-iw*theta, where omega (w) determines the energy of the particle delta function). Moving the particle in such a system just means adding a changing constant to the phase of every wave frequency, and creating/annihilation means the moving of phases to or from the e-iw*theta distribution to a randomized distribution or back again. Since phase information is affected everywhere instantaneously without regard for distance, the model holds even as speeds approach c.

The maximum rate of change of this constant is determined by the speed c–not clear yet why there is a maximum, it may be that the speed c is actually infinite, but there is a measuring/perceptual issue that appears to create a finite speed. In this model, the rate of change of this constant causes instantaneous phase shifts and can have any finite value for a particle with mass, ie a group velocity.

In this model, everything can be done just by manipulation of the phase distribution of an infinite, constant amplitude wave frequencies. The amplitude would be in some way related to the cosmological constant and Planck’s constant.

This also points out that the energy of a particle is not contained in the wave itself, but in some composite way from the group wave collection. Some type of integral over all wave vectors yielding a non-zero magnitude will produce a particle and its corresponding energy, massless or not. A randomized phase distribution will produce no net energy.

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

back to the Ring

July 2, 2008

OK, given that we assume that our existence must be scale-less and there is no God (otherwise my most fundamental question has been answered), let’s look at either the quantized photon or the fixed size of the electron (assuming the Ring theory). Is there a way to use the infinite speed wave phase, group wave speed c hypothesis to explain either of these.

That is the most important question there is right now–and given that the Ring theory for mass particles such as electrons is questionable, let’s start with the photon. The photon experiences zero time passage in its journey (in its frame of reference moving at speed c, it will appear to have experienced no time passage according to relativistic mechanics. The two slit experiment shows interference unless some means of detecting passage through one of the two slits, in which case the interference distribution disappears. Using infinite speed phase information permits this to happen if you assume that a photon detector will disturb the phase information unpredictably, causing the loss of the interference distribution.

Can infinite phase/group velocity theory explain the quantization of a photon? Thoughts to come.

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–scaleless system implications

July 2, 2008

More from my local thinking journal: deriving rules of a scale-less system.

One interesting bit of information I did not know–it is not know whether gravity repels or attracts among two anti-particles. Since the chargeloop system does not model gravity this doesnt really change anything, but I was surprised that this is not known. CERN is supposed to do an experiment that will determine this before too long.

At this point, I am thinking that perhaps setting up a push and twist simulator might be valuable, but there is no natural substance that does this, and a computer simulation still seems unworkable–any mathematical representation still requires a prohibitive amount of memory, processing HW and processing time. I tried to think of things like an FPGA construction and a massive processor array (using cells with a DRAM or two and the Cirrus processor ala the ethernet network card), but no obvious means along this line seems workable. If there was some natural substance that could be analogous or enhanced to provide that behavior, we might get some good clues. Perhaps using a set of GPUs might work–but memory is still a problem.

I also am thinking, what could be said about a scale-less system? What behavioral rules are defined by such a system? And doesn’t even a scale-less system, with an infinity to enable emergence of lumpiness at some scale, have a potential problem with a defined perfectly zero space? Ignoring that case for the moment (it’s still going to be a 0*infinity case, so in theory it could be argued that something will emerge, as was originally proposed), what rules and properties will emerge?

First, we realize in a scale-less, property-less system with a non-zero continuum at some infinite scale, does not seem to imply a dimension. It could be argued that all dimensionally possible structures could emerge, but certain properties (such as push and twist) can only emerge in a three or more dimensions, and these may be necessary for aggregation or other entropy countering factors. And too many dimensions may also be destructive to aggrevation, since even in 3D there seem to be certain cluster properties that destroy clumping.

This raises an interesting point–to produce self sustaining structures from homogenous material, scale-less or not, clumping must be self sustaining and metastable, that is, once clumping begins, there must not be factors that outweigh and thus destroy the clumping. Probably some study of chaos theory would be appropiate on this subject. Clearly the ability to locally organize in a self sustaining structure is fundamental to the emergence of life/self aware objects without a guiding intellect.

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–how to test theories

July 2, 2008

More notes from my local thinking journal. Trying to see what kind of experiments could test some of this thinking. I also go down the infinite speed phase information idea, and see some problems that need to be thought through.

After a break–six months later. No good sense of whether electron constants imply a driving God frequency, but cannot visualize it geometrically.

I gave some additional thought to creating an experimental testbench (on a computer) for a scale-less system with an entity that obeys the shove and twist behavior of EM fields. I also refreshed the idea that mass is a group wave built from unitary waves with non-causal phase shift capability. This would explain entanglement. I gave some thought to whether these waves are rectangular coordinate or spherical coordinate or something else. Nothing really falls out well–if an extradimensional frequency source at the center of a 4-D sphere, would have to have a non-linear effect on wave behavior within the sphere surface.

Then I thought perhaps some rules could be derived assuming a scale-less system, how could the push-twist behavior emerge from a scale-less system where something was created from nothing?

One interesting thought I had was that the electron constants are fixed, but actually they could be scale-less as well because there is no reference point other than other particles. It does mean that from one location to the other they have the same values–but if location is just an artifact of the phases of the group construction of waves, even that might not be all that constraining. Assuming for the moment a rectilinear construction of unitary waves of every possible frequency, and just doing a 1D simplified model, a particle then is purely defined by the phase values of an infinite set of unitary waves. Its position is defined by e^iw(x0) given some defined absolute 0 position. Its velocity is defined by how x0 changes, but this in turn defines how the phase relationship is changing of all the waves. A limit to velocity (speed of light) would be defined as the maximum rate of phase change of every wave, for example in time Delta_t, the x0 value would change by Delta_x. The effect on the phase of particular frequency is given by e^(iw(kx – phi t), so delta_x would cause proportionately greater phase shifts the higher the wave frequency.

Another question is how does a particle interact with another in such a system–if a particle approaches another and applies a force to it, the effect is ultimately to cause waves to shift phase–but since the same wave define both particles, its not immediately clear and a mathematica simulation may have to be done to understand what happens to the composite wave situation. It could be argued that the rectilinear representation doesn’t work as well as some kind of Bessel function spherical wave, which has waves that diminish over distance and would provide a better model for what happens because the two particles then, by default, are independent. But then it’s no longer a matter of just tweaking phases, and several things fall apart–this system doesn’t have a clever model for representation of entangled particles, nor does it give a purer view of motion and distance (these would have to be defined separately). It might work to have unitary spherical waves, but any spherical wave system has to add a centrifugal wave to represent things such as the electron charge loop (ring). Such a wave would have propagation problems as well as issues of phase initialization that seem worse than the rectilinear model.

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–God frequency of ring, c

July 2, 2008

More thoughts from my local thinking journal. Here I think about the God frequency and whether a scaleless system would give rise to our existence without a Creator.

It is clear to me that only two questions are of interest. Why is the speed of light, the group velocity of waves, what it is, and why is the ring frequency what it is. Actually another question also pops up–are these the same question asked in different ways. It’s quite obvious that far greater thinkers than me have long addressed these questions without satisfactory result, so clearly I have to work outside their box–I have to make some assumptions different than theirs. I choose the following: vector rotation of the F field creates the E and B fields, rings (or other stable topological entities) of this rotation make particles, the magnitude of the F field is unimportant and is constant, that phase information goes at infinite speed, and scaleless system mathematics can be applied.

In this picture, can a logical explanation for a unique ring frequency and speed of light be found?

The thinking now is no. The ring frequency–or what now might be called the “God frequency”, hopefully not too disrespectfully, cannot come from any construction due to the current model. More thought will hopefully reinforce this, but all geometrical aspects covered so far do not produce a uniqueness at any given frequency of rotation. In fact, so far a valid argument could be made that picking *any* frequency would create a system that would create particle structures and life as we know it. The Scaleless system approach clearly shows this to be true, since frequency is a function of time, a scaleless parameter. Thus, it could then be argued that within my model, there is no unique frequency, and thus the frequency set for this universe is NOT due to the construction of the universe. It is selected by a higher order system and imposed on our observed system.

This doesn’t mean there is proof of God–because it would be easy to create a higher order system that sets this frequency, and it seems clear that an intelligent entity is not required to do this. In particular, I suspect that a 4D sphere (not including time) could have an oscillator at its center, and waves propagating from the center would produce a constant stimulating entity within our 3D+T space that would potentially produce the behaviors we see, such as curvature or folding back only if the ring had a resonance with the stimulating frequency. A central source would be able to have several frequencies corresponding to the various particles in our universe. The new question then becomes why are these frequencies chosen, and the answer will just simply be completely beyond our ken unless we are somehow able to explore or create an effective model of the 4D system source.

Because it is unlikely that there will be any upper level system that could not be determined to operate autonomously, no amount of investigation by humanity is likely to ever detect a construction that can unambiguously determine God’s existence.

Further study should be able to create some constructs that narrow down how a central source could stimulate a 3D + T surface of a 4D sphere, and in fact some thinking along these lines is definitely doable and indicated. It may even be possible to come up with a unique construction that would give clues as to the composition of the 4D sphere. But if a higher level system is invoked, it seems unlikely that the God frequency causes are discernable by humans. I suspect the only hope is to think of a way to explore the 4D sphere, or especially the generating source, if indeed this is the best way to construct a system that induces the God Frequency(ies) on our existence.

Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

More notes from my local thinking journal–quantum is phase and group

July 2, 2008

This post has the discovery that the quantum entangled state, and particle interference experiments, could be well explained by assuming that particles with mass move as a group velocity of waves, but all particles, massive or not, have phase information that travels at infinite speed. Again, these are copies of notes from my local thinking journal.

More thoughts, and a nice revelation. First, a correction on the F field (composite E/B material, where E is when substance is perpendicular to c velocity, B is parallel). The ring motion and photon motion solution must have the rotation diameter in line with the c velocity, (thus a circle representing the vector lies on the axis of motion. In the case of the ring, same thing, but then the circle is always tangent to and the diameter is parallel to the normal axis of the ring. In this case, the vector is tangent to the ring, then perpendicular to the tangent of the ring, then tangent again at the 180 degree point (but pointing in the opposite direction), then perpendicular but now pointing in the opposite direction. A spin-up solution is clockwise, spin down is counterclockwise.

In this model, it became apparent that the substance (field) magnitude is unimportant because energy is only relevant to the vector spin rate. In fact, this magnitude probably has to be constant regardless of frequency (otherwise the energy of the photon or ring would depend on it, but it doesn’t since E=hv). In the case of the photon, this spin rate can be anything. In the case of a ring, only certain very specific frequencies will create a ring (eg, electron). Other topological structures should be possible, but it is very clear that in the end, only that frequency and nothing else will produce a ring. It also is clear from the two slit experiment and large photons that a string model will not work–the field is distributed and has to be part of the particle. An infinitely thin ring or string will not cause wave/particle behavior shown by the two-slit experiment.

The Fourier transform method of locating a quantum particle start from the transform of the delta function, F(x,t) = Integral(e^i 2 pi (wt – kx) delta(x,t) dt dx. This results in the following: F(x,t) = e^i 2 Pi (wt – kx), and thus implies an infinite unit magnitude frequency distribution where the particles location is solely determined by the phase relationship of every possible frequency up to the frequency determined by the energy of the particle. However, that solution is for a delta function, but a photon or electron actually is a subset of those frequencies, each of whose magnitudes will be less than unity. Nevertheless, a particle’s motion will be solely determined by rotation of the frequency set. It is doubtful that this will be useful in understanding the construction of the particles. The critical question is clearly confined to nothing more than why does only one particular frequency of the vector rotation induce a stable ring. Nothing else matters (I think) not the field magnitude, the geometry of a ring, or anything else that I can think of. In the end, a constraint must be found that specifies the field path as straight for all cases unless this particular frequency occurs, which causes path curvature.

A couple of interesting related issues–I realized that entangled states imply that phase information transfer is not limited to the speed of light, but the group velocity of waves is (whether photon or ring. massless always goes the speed of light, but massive never does). In this model, it is possible to explain the two-slit and Aspect experiments. I also realized that looking for the cause of either the speed of light or the electron energy (the “magic frequency” or from now on, the ring frequency) may be an observational issue as opposed to an actual constant of the universe. For example, it is possible that the speed of light pops out simply because time is a scaleless entity and it results from some kind of ratio given that we are particle-derived observers in an infinite (no-time) universe. In addition, I realized that the group velocity of waves creates a quantum entity by shifting the phase of the set of waves described above, and that the speed of light may actually be some maximum rate of phase shifting. But as mentioned before, my real suspicion is that the Fourier decomposition of quantum particles is a mathematical artifact and is not going to be useful.

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Notes from my local thinking journal–some thoughts on charge loop

July 2, 2008

Thoughts on the ring charge loop. This will seem sort of random since I’m collecting thoughts I’ve accumulated over the last 6 months or so.

The scale-less substance gets e^i theta complex nature as a result of the relationship of the velocity vector to the substance vector B field is one of substance is parallel to or perpendicular to the direction of field flow. This assumes that the substance is always moving at c. Photons will have the substance vector comprising rotating (vector has angular momentum), whereas e/p will be local rings of the vector, moving at c, but with the substance vector having *no* angular momentum, thus switching from B to E with compton radius. Debatable whether one or two, chargeloop says two.

An E field would be a substance motion with (say) the substance vector perpendicular to the field motion from the source(s). B field will be parallel. This s/v relation of vectors creates the symmetry between E and B even in relativistic cases. This clearly is a valid model if not an exact physical statement of the field material. It permits interchange without energy loss and permits interchange depending on the frame of reference without energy loss.

There are several questions that still need to be addressed, especially the Lorentz force relations, and how quarks and other elementary particles play in this system. But having a solid representation of the material that covers the E and B cases has to be a starting point. This system has the additional benefit of giving a simpler mathematical model since now only one substance needs to be modeled and computed.

How then does acceleration of a ring, regardless of orientation, induce substance movement parallel to the substance vector? The ring itself is going to alternate between E and B, and its vector is not going to have an angular component. Note that the induction happens when the particle is moving (which means that the induction must vanish when using the frame of reference of the ring). The magnitude of the induction must be independent of the substance vector direction.

A deeper question is why would this substance emerge from a scaleless system. Such a system has the necessary simplicity necessary to emerge from an infinite empty field, but why or how would such a system emerge with a directional quantity? Would the substance need to have a magnitude or would a unit level system suffice? I suspect adding direction to a unitlevel system would work, but how would that emerge? And this still leaves the question of the apparent fixed energy of a ring.

More on this coming.

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Updating posts

June 25, 2008

I need to update this site–I’ve been keeping up my thinking journal, but not placing the entries here. I have to admit I kind of think LiveJournal isn’t the right place for this sort of stuff, so I’ve not been posting the entries. I thought this was a journaling site ( a place where people could manage their personal journal), but I see all this other stuff that looks more like myspace, so I’m posting with somewhat mixed feelings. This is supposed to be what I’m thinking about, who cares what I look like, pics, etc. Nevertheless, no apparent harm for now. Shortly will come the past 6 months worth of entries.

Agemoz

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

scaleless systems–the path out of our current thinking box

December 6, 2007

This was the post that was supposed to be the answer to life and everything, the culmination of all this thinking. The post that is the practical limit to what a human being can conclude about this existence and God.

Sorry…

I actually ended up doing a lot of thinking about what I suspect is more important–more important, because it’s a pathway that really is a goldmine that needs to be explored before I can tackle such end-of-the-road subjects as God. The more I think about scaleless systems, the more I realize how important analysis and further development in this area is–in fact, we can’t conclude there is a practical end-of-the-road discussion/thinking yet, because this is clearly a major pathway out of our current knowledge box. Not to say I haven’t done a lot of thinking about who/what God might be, and what I’m pretty sure God isn’t.

If you’ve read any of the previous verbiage, you know I have concluded that a scaleless system almost certainly is a good representation of our existence and most significantly is a system with more degrees of freedom than the Standard Model of physics subscribes to. If you were to bring it down to its simplest representation, it is the realization that a: we have no absolute size in any physical or temporal dimension, nor is there any absolute definition of what a quantity of a substance is that composes a scaleless system–and b: the scales involved are infinite in range, either infinitely small or infinitely large. You could create a system that would fit on the point of a pin or spans a googleplex of our current universes, you could create a system that expands in a big bang and collapses back into a giant black hole in the span of a femtosecond or the lifetime of a googleplex of universe lifetimes, and any one of those systems would be a valid representation of our existence. But scaleless systems go a very important step further–not only is there no absolute length of time or space (one of the principle tenets of the general theory of relativity), but that if there is “absolutely” nothing in space, the infiniteness of that tenet is such that it is possible over some infinitely large or small range of empty space, and over some infinitely large or small range of time, that emptiness cannot exist, at some range there will be a formation of structure. It is provable that something cannot emerge from an empty finite space in a finite amount of time, but it is *not* provable that something cannot emerge from an infinitely large or infinitely small space over an infinitely large or infinitely small amount of time, using an infinite possible range of substance types.

There is the heart of the amazing revelation of scaleless systems. Combine the basic premise that guides general relativity (no absolute time or space in our existence) with the realization that infinities permit the emergence of structures in empty space over some infinite range of time, and a whole new venue is available to explore. I’ve discussed previously that in addition, there is an infinite range of substances that can form our existence, such as a field of electrostatic fields or playdoh or the neural networks inside some being’s mind, it doesn’t matter. There’s no absolute substance, any substance that obeys interactions we see in physics would equivalantly form our existence.

I think you can see how amazing this revelation is, there is a journey that must be taken here, discoveries and analysis to be done. What can we conclude about infinitely scaleless systems? Let’s think a bit on that and see if some theorems and other conclusions can help describe such a system.

agemoz

Tags:
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Solution to multiparticle ring problem

June 5, 2007

Here’s another important discovery I have done during my sabbatical. I found the only workable solution to one problem with the ring hypothesis–It is possible to derive the Lorentz force equations from the ring hypothesis with two particles, but the process previously didn’t appear to work in a three particle system. I’ve now found out why, and a different way to describe the electrostatic field so that the ring hypothesis works correctly.

If anybody is actually reading any of this, you are probably wondering why I’ve dug in so deep into physics, and hypothetical physics at that, trying to show how the ring hypothesis would describe so many physical attributes. Wasn’t this supposed to be a philosophical thinking journal? Yup, you are right, I didn’t expect to take such a deep turn into ring theory. But as I explored this concept, it pulled me in, and I’ve become more and more convinced that I was on the right track, so further thinking and analysis seemed to be justified. This is so concrete, compared to the conjecture that has to be done with philosophical thinking, that I feel like I truly am exploring new ground–even better, that I’m not just yammering but finding deep and fertile mystery that no one else has explored. This theory is just plain fascinating in its ramifications and apparent ability to match reality, to the point where (in my mind, at least) it has truly begun to take a life of its own. Nevertheless, I also have done higher level thinking that hopefully will lead back into bigger questions. But for now, bear with me because I still have a journey to make here.

I need to check back on this particular question, I don’t remember how much detail I covered on the ring hypothesis in regard to the Lorentz force laws (The orthogonal force on a charged particle moving through a magnetic field is equal to q * v, assuming non-relativistic v, and the corresponding equation for force due to an electrostatic field on a charged particle). This is what causes charged particles to follow a spiral in those particle accelerator particle smash up pictures. There is currently an unsolved question in physics as to how momentum is conserved if electrostatic attraction is caused by photon exchange. The ring hypothesis shows how this would work because a ring model of a particle will actually generate waves that spiral out from the first particle. A second particle modeled as a ring will encounter a force either toward or away from the first particle depending on the nature of its spin. I had worked this out and even came up with a quantitative value nearly matching the value stated by the Lorentz force laws (a slight deviation was handwaved away as resulting from my easier to calculate 2D approximation of the system, but of course needs to be verified). However, years ago, I discovered that this analysis only works for a two particle system, the electrostatic field spiral cannot produce the right results for a three particle system.

What I realized was I was letting the EM field pictures with arrows fool me into taking the wrong type of field. I realized that a compression field, rather than a directional field, would still allow the Lorentz force computation to be valid in systems of any number particles. And it has a huge additional benefit. I now can see why an electrostatic field and magnetic field interchange when the relative velocity of the observing frame of reference increases to near the speed of light. A compressive field spiraling away from a charged particle (due to its rotating ring structure) creates an electrostatic effect, where as a compressive field normal to the expanding compression wave will be the representation of a magnetic field. Since both fields are due to the same characteristic viewed at different angles, changing the velocity of the frame of reference that observes the field distorts the perception of the normal (perpendicular) direction such that what once was the magnetic field becomes an electrostatic field and vice versa. This to me is an incredible discovery, because it has always puzzled me why special relativity says that an electrostatic field observed from a moving frame of reference becomes a magnetic field and vice versa–it has always seemed to me that somehow we are looking at the same attribute from different sides or something. As I thought about the compression field solution, I realized that an electrostatic field and a magnetic field in the ring hypothesis were indeed just the same attribute viewed from different angles–a compression wave either toward/away from the source (electrostatic) or circling around it (magnetic). The relativistic frame observer simply changes how one (or a field detector) encounters this attribute. That was a real surprise that once again makes me think the ring hypothesis has the ring of truth to it… Oh, that was bad, sorry..

Agemoz

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »