The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?

GE and All,


I have watched both videos several times too! They are very interesting.


I've read a little on Parker Spirals, but had never seen a 3D diagram before. Having given up on my drawing ability, I turned to building models with thin copper wire & colored beads, or pipe cleaners. Please, when you get a chance, post your work on these forms.

"Coupling" them, or starting 2 of these shapes in the same (or harmonic distance) space, with a 90 degree turn between the start of the 2 cycles (acceleration phase), creates a helix (double) shaped "phase waveguide" that maintains a "point" (a dualistic enclosure of a 1/2 phase +E and 1/2 phase -M) moving forward, over a straight line (preferred direction).

By measuring these coupled waves at COMPLETE cycles, by the standard of 1 cps = 1 Hz, we only see ONE side of the mechanical process, ONE side of a duality: the complete circle illusion. By looking at this process a half phase at a time, a more Fundamental model takes shape. An acceleration phase, and a coast phase, maintaining a constant velocity. Two Vibrations, coupled at 90 deg., producing a consistent spectrum of 2 parts less than 1 octave. The 2 parts then play the role as "neutrals", they always fall in the same position, and in numerical relation to the initial state (the tonic). In the visible range of frequencies, they are Green and Magenta.

continued...


TRoc

continued:


In order to tackle the "nature of electricity and magnetism", one must tackle the pattern that allows them to combine. This pattern should make itself apparent in other ways. This pattern should be similar to having just ONE of the same form of waves, moving in 3D. This pattern DOES make itself apparent in ALL vibrations measured in Hz, even where we stop defining them as EM. The center point of this pattern lies at the octave of the square root of ©. The actual value, 17314.515..,
does not appear however, because of the imbalance of magnetic and electric force. This point is BETWEEN the duality: the point where the change from accelerate to coast takes place, the line that divides "Yellow" from "Cyan"; at the opposite point, where coast changes to accelerate, "Magenta" forms the bridge between "Violet" and "Red". This means that every Single "photon" has the same degrees of freedom, and based on the relation to either another photon, as in a stream, or to the source of the Vibration itself, the Electron, can then "collapse" into a state which we define as a measured resulting frequency. Any simple Electron to Electron resonance will occur at the same frequency, giving the illusion that the "photon" itself is traveling at that frequency. It should be apparent, that a single frequency has no mechanism with which to propel itself along; no "medium". Coupling this Fundamental Vibration with itself manifests an "imbalance" with which to self-interact. This Fundamental process is the tendency to regain balance through the cycle by cycle reduction of the DIFFERENCE in VIBRATION: The Beat Frequency. Any "collapse" of the current BF results in the MEASUREMENT, or Beat Sum. Vibration can only "end" from being "summed" by the introduction of another frequency, which "collapses" BOTH and cause a new one; or, for the initial vibrations themselves (any 2 independent vibrations), for the MEASURED space to no longer contain both of them.

This is why the "state" we define as Energy, moves around my Triangle representation of the BB Curve, at the outside edge. BF's of "complex" mixing can happen SIMULTANEOUSLY, and PERPENDICULAR to the "time" line. This is not accounted for in current theory. Measurements of the "end state" can only be represented by "probabilities". Measurements of the ENTIRE list of states will predict the outcome. This does not mean that ALL PATHS are taken, it is just a result of the "model" we call Math. Mathematically, all BF's are computed, but this not make the "wave center" change course: it still has one direction. At the collapse, the distance from this "center line" will mimic the wavelength (inverse/duality) of the BS.

I should not have to say any more, and yet, have also just described the "strange" results of Young's double slit experiment, and its' adjusted counterparts.

I will be back to give empirical evidence to support a "unified color theory", which stems from Unified Vibration. We have revisited the Black Body experiment, only to find that, in the most Scientific terms, it is NOT reproducible. I have explained the mathematical results of the "special" curve that the measured state produces. We need to revisit Newton's Prism experiment, and see what we can glean there. Then to a remodel of the photoelectric effect. If the "dualistic" hood is removed from the wave, Gravitational effects should be a short "hop" away.


TRoc

If bubbles can be formed then some theory I've forgotten about predicts that they will form, possibly at a rate related to the probability of formation and energy gap etc. If the process is reversible then they will have a lifetime that would have to be looked into. Choose your bubble, work out the probability - if probability greater than zero then you have bubbles. Plausibility would do for the present.
-c2.

All,

I hope some of you are wondering why I am bothering with such laborious breakdown of the range of frequencies in the visible light that manifests as what we call "color". The answer is simple: if there is a pattern there, then the same pattern should exist for all frequencies. It is (not ironically) the only visible display of vibration that we have. Most importantly, the current theory, while explained well enough to fit the (designed) experiment, DOES NOT cover all of the visible phenomena that we see. Finally, this is relevant to this thread because "light" is an electro-magnetic wave. Whatever properties that colored light (visible frequencies) has, the rest of the spectrum should have as well. Taking that even a step further, one can find the same pattern for ALL measurements of vibration (frequency or wavelength).

The first scientific mention of the "colors" was from Newton, and his prism experiment. This matched what we see in a rainbow, and apparently that was enough to convince the world that "white" light (misnomer) contains all colors. For obvious reasons, what does not exist as color, is not always white. "Clear" light would be a MUCH better word to use, and would have avoided many of the problems with a theory of color. The biggest problem with the current, and long standing (300 yrs) color theory is that there is NO MATH to it. That is "blasphemous" to the scientific world. What is the frequency of "white"? There is none! How can the "mother" of all colors, each having a specific frequency (with the exception of magenta) not also have a frequency? Does white light vibrate? Then at what rate? It is that simple; and there is no answer. The same goes for "black", is black not a "color"? I do not want this topic to wander off into the realm of biology, or perception; it is not really about color, it is about EM waves.

Simply put, and staying within the topic of light (and not pigments), white light does not exist. Black (darkness) is the absence of light. Now back to Newton's prism experiment. It is incomplete; it is not "complementary".

His experiment goes like this: light of random frequencies is allowed to flow through a small hole in a wall of an otherwise dark room. At an unspecified distance, this beam of light is guided through a prism, refracted, and then travels to a wall, where it is reflected and then travels back to the "observer". This results in a "rainbow", containing Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Cyan-Blue-Violet. Magenta is not there; this color is defined as an equal mix of red and violet.

In simplified form, this is the process: refract-reflect-measure (or observe, collapse, etc). The most basic, and logical change to this experiment is to reverse the order. Complementarity means it will produce the same results in reverse. If you experiment in this order, reflect-refract-measure, you do NOT get the same results. Green will never be seen in this experiment; and magenta, with careful coaxing, will show her face. Aside from these two colors, the only other "match" to the first experiment is this: R & Y will ALWAYS appear together, and C & V will ALWAYS appear together (as they do in a rainbow). Also gone from the picture is O and B . These colors are obviously tertiary to R/Y, and C/V, respectively.

Remembering that we are talking about EM waves, one must begin to question if these pairs of oscillating dualities are representative of each other. An electric "field" oscillates between + & - ; a magnetic field, between N & S. In "color", we have a wave oscillating between R & Y, and another between C & V.

How did I coax magenta into visibility? Most interestingly, by reflecting light off of a black line or spot on a white background, and then refracting it, and then measure/observe while the EM wave is in the NEAR field (polarization by reflection). This is absolutely the exact opposite of the first experiment: from the wall's "point of view" (frame of reference), the light is going through a white spot (hole of light) into a black background (dark room). The other interesting thing is that, as you increase the distance between the refraction/observation (leave the near field), you can watch magenta "split" into red and violet. This is essentially the re-coupling of the E and the M waves; the 90 deg geometry defeating the 90 deg "polarity" of an EM wave.

The rules that can be determined from these experiments (and others) is that red and violet will ALWAYS face "darkness", and yellow and cyan will ALWAYS face the "lightness". This is a new "polarity" in light. When Y & C are "squeezed" together, you get green; when V & R are brought together, magenta appears. Green and magenta can NEVER appear together, they exist only from opposing frames of reference. Cyan and red NEVER face each other, nor will violet and yellow.

When you extrapolate these "color" rules onto circular measuring, you get a CONSISTENT 90 deg. relationship for these "couple-able", polarized dualities. The very same rules that control the relationship between electric and magnetic fields (rate of vibration / frequencies).

Adding "math" (by frequency/wavelength) to the pattern, you will find that yellow is the Dominant of red, and violet is the Dominant of cyan. Of course we know, in terms of energy, that this is true. This pattern was first put forth by Pythagoras 2500 yrs ago; I am extending it by accuracy of our modern technology. Unfortunately, because of the lack of accurate data in current theory, I am only 99% finished with my own theory. I do not want to post it quite just yet.

Electro-magnetic wave "anomalies" in frequencies of the visible light range:

1. Science has not been able to determine the wavelength of magenta.
2. Black-body radiation NEVER turns green (while changing from yellow to cyan)
3. R-B-G can NOT produce the color Violet; only wavelengths <410nm can.
4. In the near field, black REFLECTS magenta.
5. Green light (light through green glass) casts a MAGENTA shadow!
6. No accurate (monochromatic) color mixing experiment has EVER been done.
7. Filters DO NOT represent one color, they allow 1/3 of the "octave" (or spectrum) through; therefore any 3 filtered colors will complete the "circle" (clear light).
8. Reversing the "prism" experiment reverses the spectrum, and eliminates green. (Try looking at a shadow cast on the bottom of a pool of a rope floating on water; you will see Y-R>dark line/shadow<V-C.)
9. In causal, or reductive reasoning, green will always appear where the light IS, and magenta will always be where the light WAS. Therefore, if a EM wave is going away from you, you will see red; if it is coming towards you, you will see blue. (Doppler)

more later...


TRoc

Hi Troc - sorry still not drawn - you seem to be looking at the sensitivity of the human eye - lizards would see it differently but still share the same planet with us quite happily, at least I hope they are happy.

Good_Elf - something has been bubbling away at the top of the planet ( ) for some time - I may be the only one trying to seal bubbles from the inside - I see other people trying to seal the universe from the inside and I ask - why so? Bit of a flyer here but how about nice normal spacetime packages up the bubbles - quantisation happens because spacetime simply permits nothing else?

de Broglie

lambda(wavelength) = h / p = h / (mv) * sqrt(1- sqr(v/c))

Point is this is mass and it's got planck's constant in it - not EM at all.

E = h * f <<<< Planck again. Mass in bendy space does it, photons when they radiate do it. let's do it, let's quantize space. (it had to scan a liitle bit)

Best wishes, Confused2.

Hi Confused2,

The energy of inflation of the universe into "space-time" (3D + T) is "incredible". Though "disputable" the amount of energy stored through inflation in an empty glass in outer space is equivalent to an inscribed sphere, radius - the radius of the Earth's orbit filled with water then converted to pure energy. This makes space-time very "stiff" and bubbles are out of the question (usually). On the "Up" side... It happily allows the Universe to be quite large "on the inside". "Big Bubbles... no trouble". He he he!

Practically speaking we are making "bubbles" all the time in our Universe (as you have noted) but not "in" space-time but "on" space-time. As you said... "bendy space". This (IMHO according to my interpretation) is in the "Uberspace" which is the six vestigial dimensions "connected" at every point in space-time but on a greater Riemann Manifold of at least 10 and more dimensions. Six of them are indeed "accessible" easily without too much of an energy penalty... even single photons can "blow bubbles " there. These dimensions are (from our perspective) invisible (the realm of the quantum and tends to hide events in there from our experience... intimately connected with h) but connected to our space-time. They are "empty" now due to "symmetry breaking" long ago. Nowadays they now contain only "unbroken symmetry" ... the quanta. I have said a little more in this "controversial" thread...
After Death... Good Elf
Read around it a little... Relativity is Electromagnetism compatible and "already unified" and it is an expression of symmetry (rotation) with EM. You have been looking at that thread on de Broglie and good for you. Note that mass enters as a relation between the phase and group velocity of a particle via an "internal process". Very understated but dead right.

Cheers

Hi!
Here is something that might help on:

These people are doing experiments that perhaps they could do for you that might shed some light.
A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities.
jal

Hi Jal and TRoc, Confused2, gadfly, Montec

I am sure TRoc will have his own reply but I found your paper and associated images fascinating and needed to say something.

I found your reference very similar in content to the Circuit QED experiments. Specially developed "atoms" are "constructed" to trap photons without recourse to actual bending dimensions at all. This is the first step in developing higher dimensional engineering. The synthetic atoms emit and absorb the same photon over and over into its own structure. I was particularly taken by your 8th and 9th Gif Image in that article you posted. We are seeing a Schrodinger solution in a cavity....
Look at this reference where I bring a few threads together... connect with the the tread "Light's Clock" by Qwerty in the post below...
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ? - Good Elf (1)
Then look into the link to Circuit QED here...
Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ? - Good Elf (2)
I think that I will "post" that 8th Image to show the amazing picture that is recorded there from a real cavity...
Amazing picture of a Schrodinger Waveguide Cavity recorded by an actual probe
This process lacks the natural trapping mechanism inside the electronic structure of "atoms". You can connect the dots with my references above and the links I have there. Cavities in higher dimensions "exist" around the nuclei of atoms but in a higher dimensional space. These cavities trap photons and electrons "equally". Once trapped these particles no longer "feel" the influence of the charged nucleus. They are simply affected by the higher geometry they are forced to travel in. The equations are unaltered for this "interpretation" so the heresy is limited to a conceptual one.

Your images in that paper indicate that there are "real" cavities as well as the wall of the waveguide. Obviously there are no "nuclear" sources in the waveguide. I would like to see other interesting examples of dimensional bubbles "attached" to some "synthetic nucleus". Thought would need to be given to the way the charge is "suspended". Clearly to test relativity and its influence on such a nuclear system this experiment would need to be done in "microgravity" to see if the system indeed curves "Uberspace". Just a point everyone... how do you all think that the nucleus of atoms are 'suspended" centrally inside a freely floating atom and its associated shell? Any "absolute" clues to this process? Is a simple static charge a sufficient analog of the charge in nucleii to "fool" the Universe into thinking it is an atom of some kind? What value would the charge need to be... scaled to be a central point but providing the same EM gradients in relative magnitude and charge gradient.

Cheers

Greetings!


jal, thanks for the link to the paper, it is an interesting experiment. It isn't quite in line with the quote you include of mine. An experiment with Parametric Down Conversion is probably closer. It could lend support to the theory (Planck) that there is a zeropoint field that is not being accounted for in these types of experiments. When I said "The other interesting thing is that, as you increase the distance between the refraction/observation (leave the near field), you can watch magenta "split" into red and violet. This is essentially the re-coupling of the E and the M waves; the 90 deg geometry defeating the 90 deg "polarity" of an EM wave." it can be further supported by a semi-recent paper on "Parametric UP Conversion, and a "satellite" rainbow that is produced. [The zeropoint field — no longer a ghost.]



confused2, when I said "I do not want this topic to wander off into the realm of biology, or perception; it is not really about color, it is about EM waves." , I did so with clarity. One can never reduce Physics to something other than our perception. Can you name any major, foundational theory that wasn't ultimately "collapsed" into the human eye??? Science is the reporting of what we see, and predicting what we will see. When you get to lizards, or whatever, you are being specific as to the "eye".

I realize that when I say "red", for example, some ambiguity may arise. This is not my fault; Science has yet to define specific frequencies/wavelengths to the spectrum. THEY leave it to our perceptive agreement; that is tragic in my opinion. When I say "red", or whatever, you can BET that I am talking about a specific frequency.

Anyone with helpful input as to explaining the "anomalies" that I listed would be greatly appreciated.

Recall the color experiment done in the space station by NASA; away from the "inductive" fields, and atmospheric limitations of the Earth, green was the result of multiple color mixing. I would LOVE (and predict) to see a simultaneous "capture" of the entangled opposing view of the thin film he was holding up for the cameras... I'll bet it would appear magenta to us.

Good Elf, can we revisit to the bubble/em connection, specifically, the equations from way back on page one?

"Laplace's Equation" for a spherical bubble and is:
σ = PR/2
where:
σ = surface tension
P = internal pressure
R = radius of bubble

The surface tension is a measure of the energy stored in the bubble. We see that it is proportional to the internal pressure P and R, the bubble radius. The surface area of the bubble is
A = 4piR

Bubbles can be made to resonate and the frequency of resonance is given by this equation...

here

f is the frequency and R is the radius. we see the frequency of oscillation of the bubble is proportional to 1/R smaller bubbles have higher resonant frequencies.

For a de Broglie particle lets assume that the circumference of the bubble is 2R equals n so we have...
f 1/R =2/n
constant = f which is an expression of a velocity.

and

here

You will probably have to fill in the equations, this system won't even copy an equation from a previous page.


TRoc

Hi!
TRoc, the acticle, [The zeropoint field — no longer a ghost.]
support what you have said... what I was implying/trying to say was ... perhaps by combining the two experiments the missing "color" could be seen to be missing .
I'll now shut up, listen and learn.
jal

Hi TRoc, jal & Good_Elf (Montec too?),

Jal - useful link - thanks.

TRoc - OK, sorry again, I have to keep trying. I am genuinely colour blind which might explain why it means less to me than some others. I do agree that once you cease to observe (anything) you start to lose the plot.

Good_Elf -
Stephen Hawking (book ? ) tries to suggest (I think) that (if the universe were reversible) the sum total of 'everything' would be zero - maybe a throwaway line but even so - maybe you don't have to pay for the inflation because you're (effectively) only borrowing it. I don't quite follow your 'stiff' spacetime result - one point being that we (my assumption) are blowing bubbles in already inflated space - we don't have to blow 'em from scratch - I agree that would be a challenge.

Anything 'in' space is automatically relativity compatible - anything 'on' space would seem to duplicate the existing unification problems - hence my enthusiasm for an 'in' solution - it doesn't have to be good - just plausible will do for now.

I've posted this elsewhere.. but .. I maintain that the phase and group velocity are purely artifacts of the maths chosen to analyse the 'mass' and have no absolutely no physical significance. It may give the right answer to the 'right' question but QM (eg electron mass) is not the right question for it, I suggest the problem lies with the maths not the mass.
I suspect String and Elf theory are looking for tight (perfect) coupling between QM and relativity - I'm looking at 'loose' coupling - where spacetime is totally uncritical of anything that is properly wrapped and may also take part in the wrapping process. Very Xmassy.

This is intended as a provoker..
Taking hydrogen .. Gauss's Law suggests a charge acts from it's centre however big it is so that takes care of the nucleus - I'd go for the probability of the electron being 'anywhere' around the nucleus is sufficient to cover up the +ve charge with -ve charge. I suspect hydrogen does have unusually bald spots at the top and bottom.. (hence hydrogen bonds?). I've a nasty feeling I've seen that the electron does quantum swoops right into the nucleus in some atoms..???
Best wishes, C2.

Hi confused2,

Last point... gauss's law says that the "attraction" of the charge is due to only the "inscribed sphere" so for any uniformly charged sphere the transport of a test charge toward the center... the repulsion force decreases to zero at the center since the charge is all "outside" the test charge now. Similar to the principle of a van de graff generator where the sphere is hollow the charge resides on the outside and there is no effective charge inside. I have read in a lot of learned texts to the contrary and it is a load of manure.

If this is the case then the (for the sake of simplicity) the spherical electron cloud around the nucleus is uniformly distributed. The nucleus is an "opposite point charge" at the center surrounded by "equal charges" on opposite sides "everywhere". It is neither attracted nor repelled by the "symmetric" cloud. Yet according to the idea that there is attraction between the positive nucleus and the negative electron cloud, the electrons should be "sucked" into the nucleus. Force or no force? Probability density or a slow moving individual charges?... or neither?

Are those alarm bells ringing? Or tinnitus?

Unnn... thats me.

That point about "tension". Think of inflating an otherwise ordinary indestructible balloon. Blow it up until it has the size of our Universe now see if you can "pinch it". Check out how easy it is to deform an un-inflated balloon.

Phase and group velocity are real and are both real quantities not "imaginary" as you may think. Take a flashlight/laser pointer and aim it at one side of the moon and then immediately "flick" point to the opposite limb of the moon... the light spot on the surface of the moon can move faster than the "group velocity" of the speed of light. That is the "phase velocity". Everyday concept.

Cheers

GE,


Does the Laplace equation work regardless of the medium that the bubble is in?


TRoc

Hello Guest,

Congratulations Guest - you've just discovered quantum mechanics ! Wiki links out so try
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom7.htm - the whole site looks pretty good.
Best wishes, C2 .