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 »

existence and me

September 18, 2007

Wow, that last post was a doozy. Summarizing it, I tried to say–dying is less of a big deal than it seems–nothing really gets destroyed, the bag of particles that makes up me, just gets rearranged into a more diffuse distribution. The concept of me is immortal, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no difference between what is real and what isn’t. You say, there is too a difference–I am real, but the idea of me is not… But reread that last sentence, it is really very astonishing. You think you are real, but the death of you is just “your” particles floating about in a different way–you are just the *idea* of particles in a particular order. You are no more real than me defining you as a circle, and then creating a real you by putting a bunch of rocks in a circle. By the same token the idea of the circle, or of you, is just as real as you are.

The utterly profound way to think of reality is that ideas and reality are one and the same. Reality has no more meaning than an idea. When you die, it’s just a shuffling of the deck. The combination of particles and environment that made you, the idea of you, disappears, but no particles will disappear–the only thing that vanishes is that particular order. When we suffer loss of loved ones, we suffer loss of the idea, the particular arrangement of particles will not recur. I know I’m probably sounding rather bizarre here, but to the best of my abilities, I have concluded that this thinking is “true”, that is most likely from a global point of view.

The concept of existence as a distinct entity from non-existence becomes in this way of thinking becomes somewhat narrower than we might think. Here we are, full circle from the thinking about something arising from nothing. Existence can readily be defined as something, and non-existence can be defined as nothing. But Existence is really just one particular ordering and non-existence is another. One way to see this is by studying what it means to die–it’s just a different ordering–but you must realize that my statement is true, because we say that in one case we exist and in the other we don’t. There is basically no difference between existing and not existing!! (I need to throw in a caveat here that does not break this analysis but just needs to be mentioned–I am assuming that in one form or another the particles, or the equivalent energy is conserved. Standard physics says the energy-mass of a particular system will be conserved, although in extreme cases such as black holes we might see some odd permutations of this–but the basic concept of the idea is valid in the space-time we “exist” in.

So what the heck does it mean to realize that existence doesn’t really have significance over non-existence? Well, one thing is for sure–philosophizing over the meaning of existence, why we are here, and does God exist, and similar questions, takes on a whole new light when this realization is made. The realm of existence as different from non-existence is intriguingly very small using this analysis. But doggone it, when we are born or die, there is no question a major cataclysm occurs, there is definite change of some sort. We form or lose a particular pattern, an *idea* that has great meaning to us, the pattern that we call the “existence of me”. We really hate it when that idea vanishes.. uh actually I guess we dont hate it once the pattern of our existence vanishes, but we sure hate knowing that the pattern will vanish (that is, knowing we will die), and do everything possible to make the pattern last longer. That’s because that longing to preserve our existence is built into our pattern. You can see that it doesn’t have to be that way, but it is in order that the patterns can be self propagating/reproducing. A pattern that has the ability to produce similar patterns will not decimate itself if this urge to survive is built into the pattern–the Darwinian principle of survival.

What is so cool about this is it starts to answer the question about consciousness. I’ve always wondered why we seem to have that trait but a pile of rocks doesn’t… Does the fact that we have consciousness mean that there is a soul, or some entity separate from our existence (!), ie, the existence of our pattern of life. The answer has got to be no. Rocks dont have consciousness, among other things, that allows propagation, survival, and reproduction. So rocks won’t reproduce, and have no apparent consciousness. *BUT*, that’s only from our perspective when we look at rocks–it might be conscious if we look at the complete earth, or some such subsystem over the appropriate scale of time. Does my toenail have consciousness of itself–no, but the pattern it is part of does.

Now, what does all this say about God?

I suppose you’ll have to wait for the next post for the answer to everything…!

Agemoz

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

ideas

July 11, 2007

I’m going to back out of some of this reductionist thinking and take a high level view, because I’ve been thinking that there’s some important lines of thought about *why* I’ve augured into particle physics, or at least something that resembles it.

The problem with physics, especially if you take the time to really study and understand it, is that you can do it thinking you will get insights into how the world works, and then get insight into why we are here, what we are here for, what we should do, etc. But when I dug in deep, and ended up in this journey into how things might work, I began to realize that it may be a red herring, or at least a distraction, from what is really important. I’ve had some truly elegant insights that came from this thinking–what’s so neat about it, is that whether or not this ring hypothesis is right, it points to something I’m much more certain is right. I’ve watched some relatives go through the dying process, and came to a stunning realization–whether you believe standard model physics or my ring theory or anything similar, it has become easy to see that when you die–no particles are destroyed! Sure, there are chemical and biological processes that begin at death–but the *only* thing that truly dies is the *idea* of ones existence. In some sense, particles just go from one highly ordered pattern to another, perhaps significantly less ordered, but just a re-arrangement of particles!

This of course assumes that there’s no magical soul or other non-physical element–if there is such a thing independent of the pattern of my existence, it’s not clear how or what happens to that. Lately, my thinking has been that there isn’t such a thing–our magical soul, self-awareness, etc, comes out of the pattern of particles, so dying, with its destruction of this pattern into more chaotic distributions of particles, destroys this magical soul that constitutes our consciousness. Yeah, kind of discouraging to realize that dying really means termination, sorry no afterlife, guys! But the crucial thing here is that life arises from an arrangement, a pattern, of particles. We are an *idea*.

This raised my thinking all the way out of physics in a hurry, because if this is true, then trying to analyze just how the world is made at the particulate level is a waste of time. It suggests that ANY complex system with some set of requirements could give rise to true life with conscious self awareness. If I think of a world in my head, it is possible that these abstractions, given that certain requirements of systematic stability and some level of abstraction causal interaction is enforced, could truly be alive in the same sense we are.

I think that thinking about ideas is critical to getting closer to transcending the current human understanding of existence. There are two parts to this philosophical way of thinking–an idea can be thought of as a specific abstraction, and the extent to which an idea generates a deterministic result depends on the extent of its implementation within a system. For example, I can think of an idea, and then, as an engineer, I can build that idea–but the fact is, all I did is make a *copy* of that idea within a particular system different than the one in my head. The idea in my head remains, regardless of what I build, and it remains distinct from any implementation of the idea I do with electrons and protons. The one I build can only be an approximation of the one in my head. But from this I got a lightning bolt of inspiration (an idea :-)–there’s nothing magic about electrons and protons, they too are ideas replicated in a deterministic way from fields or rings. Atoms are simply conceptual arrangements of these building blocks, so they too are just ideas, as are molecules, cells, etc.

An analogy I like to use is comparing electrons and protons to the water vapor in clouds. The first system readily forms atoms that build up complex systems, such that in sufficient numbers and in sufficient interaction time they form self aware creatures like us. Water vapor at first glance doesn’t do this in clouds, there appears to be no significant interactions that form deterministic systems. But that’s only because we are looking at too small a scale, ie, insufficient complexity. Eventually, a system of water vapor will form hurricanes, and given sufficiently large scale collections of water vapor (among other things, such as heat, electricity from lightning, etc) would eventually create a live self-aware system as well. A pretty outrageous hypothesis, and it may fail because there may be some system requirement that water vapor doesn’t meet that prevents formation of live entities. Nevertheless, I am increasingly convinced that any sufficiently complex system will form life–which means *it doesn’t really matter what is going on at the lowest levels*. That means that studying physics as a way of touching the mind of God, to use a famous phrase, very likely will not work. What matters is what it means to be an idea. As I mentioned, even electrons and protons could just simply be figments of some entity’s mind, such that the entity is simply applying consistent behavioral rules within his mind. Pretty outrageous, and at this point I don’t think that’s what’s going on, but it’s very clear in my mind that it *could* happen that way–thus reinforcing two things–we are nothing more than a concept that has been realized within a particular system, and our dying means nothing more than a reordering (mostly dispersal) of our constituent components.

Here we come full circle back to the concept of reality. It is becoming increasing clear that the distinction between reality and a concept is non-existent. What is real just means what is an idea, a concept. I’ve taken this journey for a long time, passing through analysis of local and global views of the time and space system, down into particle systems within that environment, along the way finding that the ring theory has a lot going for it in understanding this level of system (in my mind anyway), then as I try to envision how this reality formed at the beginning of time, I headed into a vast new elegant realm of scale-less systems–something arising from an infinitely small or large system, where the entities can be anything at all–and while trying to make a distinction between reality versus concepts we form in our minds about that reality in a scale-less system, now realizing that I am on the threshold of discovering that there is no difference–the reason something arises from nothing is because there isn’t a something there in the first place, there are only concepts, patterns, constructions that have no intrinsic existence. If I derive a causal relationship given a set of starting assumptions, that is just as real as we are. That relationship will always exist, regardless of whether there is a reality based implementation. Similarly, I will always exist given the starting assumptions of a particular pattern of particles, and I will not exist when those patterns morph into something else for any reason. I am an idea that will always exist given the right set of patterns. Does it matter what system I am implemented in, whether it’s electrons and protons, water vapor, or God’s mind? Well, actually yes–because since each of these are ideas in their own right, they form part of the starting assumptions that make up me, the others will be similar but not the true idea of me. But that doesn’t matter, because all you need to do is back up and include the particular idea of electrons and protons, and you will have the true idea of me. In some complex and profound sense, I, because the idea of me will ALWAYS exist given the right set of assumptions, am immortal.

Agemoz

Posted in philosophy | 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 »