Scientific Forums


Pages: (15) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> String Theory, Various comments stareted by fattysmo
Good Elf
Posted: Dec 6 2004, 10:39 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4-December 04

Positive Feedback: 73.08%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi All,

This is a partial thread that was lost in the recent crash I am sorry that all others in this thread are not included but I only kept my bits.

I am also sorry that the sequence is now a bit jumbled and may not make sense to others who "jump" in.

Guest_fattysmo Posted on Nov 24 2004, 03:30 PM
I agree with you Matt. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, so with astrophysicists inventing all these extra dimensions, it seems to be making the universe a very complex place. I believe that with the elegance of some of the physical principles we believe we understand now, making all these extra complexities is only veiling our true understanding of the universe.

the1physicist Posted on Nov 25 2004, 04:21 AM
First of all, utisunzipped, I do not have a problem with complicated things. I am very capable of comprehending complex phenomena. I do, however, have a problem with wrong things. If I thought string theory were correct, I would not have started this topic. That being said, Matt practically read my mind with his posts. The reason I have a problem with string theory is because it was developed by mathematicians to make the equations work. They quite literally sat in a room and said "Oh crap, our equations don't work. Let's add another dimension!" Now where do these extra dimensions reside according to the theory? Any string theorist will tell you, "Oh, well at every point in space, all the extra dimensions are curled up into an infinitesimally small region." (or something like that) Apparently, proponents of string theory are not aware of a magical little conceptual tool called an analogy. Allow me to explain. When going from 1 dimension to two dimensions, where do you add the extra dimension? Do you say, "Well at every point along this line, I'm going to add 1 extra domension" Heck no! It becomes a plane. Similarly, If you want to form a 3 dimensional object, would you add an extra dimension to every point in the plane? Better yet, you could add 2 dimensions to every point on the line. Yeah, that would work. No, you would add the extra dimension(s) outside of the existing dimensions. This is exactly where string theory fails. By ignoring the conceptual precedent and relying solely on mathematics to rectify a fundamental error, string theorists made a vast mistake. On the other hand, if they would have added their additional dimensions on the outside, like they should have, they would have found it necessary to only add one additional dimension. Whodathunkit? All this because some smart*** mathematicians thought they could do physics.

25/12/2004
Good Elf
Hi the1physicist,

I am with you on this one all the way. The one thing that I abhor is a vacuum. An a vacuum is what you get for understanding with the mathematical physicist. They will complain that the Universe is not understandable and that all that we can do is try "stuff" and see what works. There are a lot of "conjecturing" going on and I for one am "agin it".

The Universe is eminently understandable but often it takes a big effort to do so at first. You will not find too much maths in my posts. If someone wants an explanation then we should explain not "baffle them with science". If we don't know how to put it into words then ask somebody. That’s what the forum is for. Maths will "naturally" flow from the understanding.

Quite often exact solutions are useful to convince us that the Theory is on track but in general, ballpark figures are not only useful but are pretty good. To get the exact solution you need a mathematical physicist. To get the idea you need an Einstein. Einstein’s Universe was a concept of the mind and not one devised by a committee as was the Standard Model. I think that I can safely say that Einstein is safe nearly 100 years after his thought, but the Standard Model is showing a lick of paint falling off even now.

I still would like to hear what others have to say about string theory.

Cheers


--------------------
"Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle"
Top
athena
Posted: Sep 27 2005, 02:01 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 27-September 05

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Have you read
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

It's like Hawkings' books on black holes, sort of explains it to the layman.
And it turns out to be wuite an elegant, "simple" solution. But hard to prove - impossible with modern technology, but we're getting closer with the particle accelerators.
Top
Good Elf
Posted: Sep 27 2005, 03:04 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4-December 04

Positive Feedback: 73.08%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi athena,

QUOTE (athena Posted on Sep 27 2005 @ 02:01 AM)
have you read
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

biggrin.gif There are a lot of old threads coming up lately... I like old threads. Yes I have 'since" purchased a copy of the "Elegant Universe" and I have seen the on-line full length video presentation as well. Good stuff.

This is a very old thread (this is an attempt by me to put back a lot of lost stuff) and I have since "changed my mind" about string theory. I am convinced that there is something in it.

Quantum Theory has a number of postulates at it's base. I believe these postulates are no longer necessary and all have one big "unifying" point behind them.... extra dimensions. I mean extra 'physical" dimensions as well. Take each quantum postulate one at a time and I believe you can account for it by one simple physical theory.... extra dimensions. What I mean by a physical theory as apposed to a "postulate" is the postulates have no theory behind them... they are operational truths. They may seem OK on a casual inspection but whenever extra dimensions are involved in a theory the postulates are conveniently invoked along with "Occam's Razor" to blunt any co-ordinated alternatives. One at a time these postulates seem reasonable but taken as a group they represent an unexplained body of Physics for which there is no "mechanism". The "Theory" to replace the postulates puts a "mechanism" in it's place and allows testing. Do we accept several quantum 'postulates" or one simple physical mechanism to replace them all?

Since early days Physics has been "applied science". Today it is "mathematics" with the rider that we are not supposed to think about any of the processes that have put these postulates in place or the historical conditions that gave them birth. The theory is presently very good and as they usually say about present theory 'It's so good ... it is not even wrong". If you want numbers ... present theory will give you excellent numbers. If you want the next step in Physics this is a 'wall" that has been built very high to prevent you even peeping over it.

It may take years or it may take centuries but in the end I predict that "added dimensions" will sweep away all objections. The quantum postulates will be seen for what they were ... "crutches" for our understanding in an era where basic knowledge of processes was severely lacking. Seventy years ago there were good reasons for “postulates”… what is the justification for them today? It is up to Science itself to open it's eyes and begin to see what is so obvious and ever present before them all these years. There are extra dimensions “everywhere”. As Susskind has said of String Theory…” if anything is a string then everything are strings”. There is no such thing as a “half-String Theory”.

We will not progress without added dimensions. There will be no added "quantum leaps" in understanding until Science is released from bondage and is able to proceed. "Flat" Physics of simple space-time will not be able to understand what is necessary to grasp the true meaning of Gravity, the Quantum and Time. Newton’s Theory was good and is still used to guide our space probes to the planets… not Quantum Theory or General or Special Relativity Theory. That is because it is “appropriate’ to the task. Current Particle theory has been “adequate” but it is a “model”… everyone knows that. If something is wrong the “model” will be changed. This is not going to predict it’s own demise is it? Unfortunately it has become “iconic” and it is time for the “Iconoclasts” to deal with it. “Look out everyone I have a Theory... and I am not afraid to use it”… he he he! biggrin.gif

Cheers


--------------------
"Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle"
Top
Zephir
Posted: Sep 27 2005, 12:12 PM


AWT founder
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9783
Joined: 27-August 05

Positive Feedback: 48.7%
Feedback Score: -71


QUOTE (Good Elf @ Dec 6 2004, 10:39 AM)
where do these extra dimensions reside according to the theory

The RealityCheck seems to be very true - the hidden dimension concept is the most crucial (and as I believe, the one of last...) step for the whole universe understanding. I don't know the math background of string theory so well, but the Aether wave theory (AWT) uses the hidden dimension concept too and the convoluted dimension have a VERY concrete physical meaning/reason here.

The AWT supposes, the dimensions are created by the interaction of the very small, convoluted loops of quantized gravity energy vibration (which are in fact a just a mutual space-time quantity changes by the AWT), forming the space-time "particles". The space-time metric is given by the number of the contemporaneous convolution direction of these gravity loops. The reason is, the gravity exchange path serving here as the physical dimension (i.e. direction) for the subsequent gravity energy exchange at the higher dimension level. I.e. mass vibration path is a simply path for the derived mass vibrations by the same way, as the spring of water (filled by the underwater sound waves) is a path/environment for the surface wave spreading. Is it more clear for you?

This concept is very natural, not just only in strictly physical sense, in fact - I'm explaining here on the case of subwater / water surface wave spreading model (as the closest analogy of hidden dimension concept known by me), on the monetary evolution or information exchange model, etc.


--------------------
Aether in one sentence: The particles of reality are formed by observation of reality through density fluctuations of particles of reality.
Please, have look at my posts history [http://superstruny.aspweb.cz] with full-text search before asking for details. Thank you!
Top
Drude
Posted: Sep 27 2005, 11:40 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 808
Joined: 4-May 05

Positive Feedback: 68%
Feedback Score: 12


What an elegant aggregate of hypothetical controversial bullocks smile.gif

As usual awesome math work but deficient in proof. Mistakedly called a THEORY, over rated fueld with excitement over Einstein's jargon. My guess is that this wont ever be proved as it is not true and a mere formulation to explain observed abnormalities in other defect, inferior theories of relativity, quantum and molecular formations. This new trend is surely to take humanity to a whole new Impratical, leve. A world of formulas, strings, frames and other sci fi entities totally sensical in the crazy world of membrane-univesres and strings but words on a page in real world. how does it benefit mankind? apparently it excites college studetns, depressed professors and sci fi fans.

Neverthless, I appreciate this post. Good stuff.
Top
gadfly
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 12:24 AM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Joined: 6-September 05

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 4


There appears to be a new competitor to string theories - causal set theory.

I have just become aware of this theory.

For those interested there is a brief discussion at an Imperial College - London website by DC Brody, F Dowker, J Halliwell, C Isham, I Raptis and K Savvidou. It apparently involves a decoherent histories approach, classical stochastic growth model, quantum category theory and other theories of Quantum Gravity and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/theory/...rch/quantum.htm


--------------------
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
Top
Zephir
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 02:49 AM


AWT founder
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9783
Joined: 27-August 05

Positive Feedback: 48.7%
Feedback Score: -71


QUOTE (Drude @ Sep 27 2005, 11:40 PM)
...as usual awesome math work but deficient in proof....

There is a interesting and rather funny point about the superstring theory: it's very true by its nature, but practically nobody of string theorist exactly understands why. You can read the whole Greene's The Elegant Universe overview, but you can never found, why the theory was introduced as the ad-hoc concept exactly.

But you can believe me, the main principles of this theory (i.e. string wave equation and hidden dimension concept) are the best description of reality available. Just because they're the only (and the only necessary) principles able to describe simply both the gravity wave behavior, both the water surface motion.


--------------------
Aether in one sentence: The particles of reality are formed by observation of reality through density fluctuations of particles of reality.
Please, have look at my posts history [http://superstruny.aspweb.cz] with full-text search before asking for details. Thank you!
Top
Good Elf
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 10:14 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4-December 04

Positive Feedback: 73.08%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi Zephir, Drude, Gadfly,

QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Sep 27 2005 @ 12:12 PM)
the hidden dimension concept is the most crucial (and as I believe, the one of last...) step for the whole universe understanding.

Seems we agree firmly on that point. Your theory varies from standard LQG. That is "good".

The additional dimensions in String Theory are "vestigial" but can be "inflated" by "excitations". Because they are "dimensional" traps, the energy does not easily escape. It also means that "stuff" does not easily enter them as well (only when they satisfy the "periodic" boundary conditions). They play only a small role in our Universe as "quanta" enter and exit our "Space-time" utilizing these additional dimensions. An example is "radio" and that wave particle duality... sometimes it is a wave and other times it is a particle. Never both at the same time. When it is a wave it is behaving as an unseen quantum... when it is a particle it is an "interaction" which is in "space-time". Another manifestation of these extra dimensions is the appearance of the complex numbers (i,j,k) especially in radio physics and in optics.

Have a look here at some spherical harmonic "excitations" of a non-quantum nature. Then click on the last reference to see an animation of a Hydrogen Atom. The colors represent the complex plane and how this interacts with the time dependent part of the Schrodinger Equation. Click on color patch to top right for explanation. I think it is "interesting"...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"

Cheers


--------------------
"Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle"
Top
Zephir
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 11:12 AM


AWT founder
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9783
Joined: 27-August 05

Positive Feedback: 48.7%
Feedback Score: -71


QUOTE (Good Elf @ Sep 28 2005, 10:14 AM)
...because they are "dimensional" traps, the energy does not easily escape...

It depends on the point of view, what you mean - but in general I'm not very sure about this. for example, the inner energy of the gravity quantum loops is manifested by the particle charge and such of this it participates very easily on the energy transfer across the Aether/vacuum. Of course, these loops are quantum entangled, but due the very low graviton zero state energy the energy exchange proceeds a quite freely. For example, introducing an energy into vacuum you can easily prepare a high convolution loop in form of massive particles. On the contrary, whenever fermion-anti-fermion are met together, the inner energy of both of them compensates easily practically with no energy interaction barrier. It means, the internal particle energy is very "naked" by its nature and in dynamic equilibrium of the quantum environment.

QUOTE (Good Elf @ Sep 28 2005, 10:14 AM)
...sometimes it is a wave and other times it is a particle. Never both at the same time....

I suppose, you mean the decoherence effect for the single particle-observer system. But I believe, the very same energy wave can be observed by the some observer as the particle and as the wave by the other one at the same time. Thus, the wave/particle duality manifestation is just a question of proper observer selection. Even the very same observer can obtain a different view to the same experiment depending on its mutual speed, for example.

I know the quantum effects, of course, I'm modelling it in details, too. But they're just a wave interference effect resulting from using a non-reference frame interaction for observation (i.e. using a photons, not the gravitons). The standing underwater energy wave would appear differently being observed using the underwater sound wave and surface wave, respectively.


--------------------
Aether in one sentence: The particles of reality are formed by observation of reality through density fluctuations of particles of reality.
Please, have look at my posts history [http://superstruny.aspweb.cz] with full-text search before asking for details. Thank you!
Top
Good Elf
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 03:01 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4-December 04

Positive Feedback: 73.08%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi Zephir,

There is not a lot of "apparent" difference between our concepts. I prefer to deal with "real" spatial dimensions because that is what I think they are. I also believe that our "Universe" have these branes and is a "special case" for us because we are inside that 10 dimensional "space" but "experience" is "confined" to only three dimensions plus time. These "touch the surface of our Universe" everywhere. This means at every point of our generally rather flat "Space-time" volume the "potential" exists for "Kaluza-Klein"-like connections in higher dimensions. The size of these "pocket extensions" to space-time depends on the "string excitations". In the case of photon "radiation" fields rather than "inductive" fields the photons are spawned having only a "simple" extension into "Uberspace". We have been very good at construction of these quantum electrodynamic branes. Particles like an electron are another thing altogether. These manifest mass and "perpetual charge". I think the simplest view of it I have seen is this...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
This is a "loop" with a "half-twist" (mobius strip) such that the "electric and magnetic fields" are topologically wrapped to the surface of the brane providing all the normal measurables. I guess "gravity" could accomplish this but this theory lacks the dimensions to provide consistent particle spin and it is not a gravity theory as such. That is where it would seem your LQG steps in but I confess it is a complex concept for me. I have taken the idea of General Relativity and the Equivalence principle to supply the missing bits for mass and gravity. I realize this is not popular. I see you like "geometrodynamic" concepts as well. I believe that is the right approach. I believe that particle construction can proceed as shown in this paper but with appropriate dimensional "extensions".

The bosonic nature of branes in "Uberspace" means they obey "Bose-Einstein" statistics. Any number of these entities can exist in the "Uberspace" and they simply "pass through each other" without any effect. Not so with fermions.

If you had a look at that quicktime movie, you see the colors indicate the "complex" temporal qualities that are not evident in the time independent solutions. I suggest that we are looking at the "shadows on the wall" of 3D + T space-time of the higher dimensional object, the complex numbers are "compressed" (flattened) dimensions shown with color (probably the ones you are describing in your theory). The "object" lives in a higher six dimensional "cavity" connected to spacetime but separate.
Superposition state of the hydrogen
(Quicktime)

Cheers


--------------------
"Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle"
Top
Zephir
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 03:34 PM


AWT founder
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9783
Joined: 27-August 05

Positive Feedback: 48.7%
Feedback Score: -71


QUOTE (Good Elf @ Sep 28 2005, 03:01 PM)
...I think the simplest view of it I have seen is this...

As I've explained at the same forum, the "simplest" view don't mean the "most basic" view necessarily.

How can I derive the Einstein's / Quantum theory postulates from this view, for instance?

QUOTE (Good Elf @ Sep 28 2005, 03:01 PM)
...I suggest that we are looking at the "shadows on the wall" of 3D + T space-time ...

In fact you're observing a rather micro-lensing effect as the result of space-time deformation by the electron motion energy - very similar to the deformation of the fish shape, swimming right bellow the water surface.

user posted image


--------------------
Aether in one sentence: The particles of reality are formed by observation of reality through density fluctuations of particles of reality.
Please, have look at my posts history [http://superstruny.aspweb.cz] with full-text search before asking for details. Thank you!
Top
MrTompkins
Posted: Sep 28 2005, 03:50 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 28-September 05

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Good Elf,

I went through the site, about three deep - guess you could say just doing my homework to see who I am talking too, so I could understand your point of view and many others.

QUOTE
"Kaluza-Klein"-like connections in higher dimensions.


I believe I understand how the change of mind on many issues within this site happens, we do the same when we are tossing ideas around, when the tide of knowledge changes then views unseen become known.

It is certain we live beyond the 4d, this can be proven in just a simple understanding of the electron dynamics. Please explain without taking up much of your time, what you mean by HIGHER DIMENSIONS? You with many others have mentioned this -Hd, but the Kaluza-Klein only a few.

Then, if you will not mind I would very much like to be involved in this discussion.

I just checked in as you can well see, and my time is between many other groups which are not on the web, thank you Good Elf for your time in this matter. I will try check back soon.

MTs


--------------------
I still understand a few words in life, but I no longer think they make a sentence.
Send PM ·
Top
Good Elf
Posted: Sep 29 2005, 10:51 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4-December 04

Positive Feedback: 73.08%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi Mr Tompkins and Zephir,

If you want to see everything I have done on this site "backwards through time" if you click on my name (when you are logged in) then click on the reference under my name you have my "history" in a nutshell.

QUOTE (MrTompkins Posted on Sep 28 2005 @ 03:50 PM)
Then, if you will not mind I would very much like to be involved in this discussion.

I sure nobody here is going to object... he he he! Only too happy that someone is taking an interest.
QUOTE
what you mean by HIGHER DIMENSIONS? You with many others have mentioned this -Hd, but the Kaluza-Klein only a few.

Well this idea that I am promoting is not "pure" KK for sure. KK was all about 5 dimensional unification. I can see now why that would fail. The idea is OK though if it is extended. I would like to qualify what I am trying to put forward. Our manifold (the more general one) is at least 10 dimensional. Three spatial plus one time dimension we are well aware of. This is because these dimensions are "fully inflated". For some reason, that nobody is really clear about there are six other dimensions that are not as inflated. Conventionally these are usually thought of as being associated with other bosons and fermions. There is a special set of these six dimensions associated with that "bulk" of 3D + T "Spacetime", I term it the "Uberspace" because it excludes the three dimensions of Spacetime.

Because they are vestigial dimensions they can be "temporarily" inflated to provide "branes". These are dimensional objects. They can convey or contain "stuff" such as photons or quantum particles. They connect with our "Spacetime" during "interactions". Bosons can move through each other. They are moving in the "Uberspace". The projection of "dimensional" branes into our Spacetime in only three spatial dimensions give rise to the notion of waves. Naturally bosons when they are not observed are invisible in the "Uberspace". Photons are bosons, they can be artificially generated using "radio transmitters". The near field region of the transmitter is where there area lot of unbalanced forces where our three dimensions are "mixed" with the other six dimensions. The "brane" defines the size of the dimensional space.Transmitters actually create "extra space volume" in the Uberspace". It can also "leak away". What keeps the dimensions "open" are "excitations" of the brane because this brane is easy to inflate unlike the already inflated "Space-time" which is very tautly stretched and under very high tension.

Photons inside the space propagate but because they have no rest mass they "spread". For instance that illustration by Zephyr is fine for a particle with mass but is not what happens to "photons" which spread. The actual shape and size of photon packets is not a "sinusoid" as in water they are more like circulating pancakes that spread ever larger with time subtending the same solid angle from the source. The source is about the size of the emitted photon... the "simple" view of this object is shown here...
User posted image
This is "our" three dimensional view of it. It is a "slice" through a dipole radiator (it does not show near field conditions). The rest of this thread will show you what is most pressing about the place of this phenomena regarding it's "pure geometry".
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
These spawned three dimensional objects are not the entire story because they are in higher dimensions and this aspect is not seen by us in 3D + T dimensions. We see much of these electromagnetic branes exhibiting "complex" quantities in the time dependent part of the wave equation. This is not able to be demonstrated with so called plane waves since mathematically plane waves are unable to "carry" energy. Proper solutions of the spherical waves will indicate the complex plane and the way this uses those "complex numbers" and is an expression of "higher dimensions". Everybody who has worked with radio physics know all about the square root of minus one.

You would have seen the wonderful animations of the eigenstates of the hydrogen atom linked in my previous post. The colors indicate the use of complex plane in the time dependent part of the wave equation. This is just for two eigen states. Click on the color patch to the top right to see how these colors "map". These are oscillations in a "tuned cavity". They define a closed "spacetime" of a special kind in the "Uberspace". This structure can trap photons or electrons. Once they are in there they find it difficult to escape because it is spatially closed. This is understood by some of the postulates required in quantum theory...
(1) Bohr Postulate that the electron is trapped in a closed path where the wavelength of the electron or the photon is an integral number of wavelengths (Stationary state).
(2) The electron does not spiral into the nucleus (since it cannot lose energy from a dimensionally closed space). Ordinary spaces cannot do this.
(3) Space quantization is a function of the degrees of freedom a particle can spin in (three planes at the one time)
Any of the quantum hypothesis can be explained by these extra dimensions and we no longer need "hypotheses" but can consider the higher dimensional "quanta" as in a "hidden state" until an interaction occurs.

I begin a description of what is gravity and what is mass here (based on a particle less description).
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"?
All the properties of an electron can be "almost" accounted for using a semi-classical point of view of the photon trapped in a "space" and wrapped along a mobius strip path.
Apeman wised me up to this paper...
Electron is close-looped photon?, Any further work in semi-classical?
The reason why photons spread and particles with mass do not is found here....
Entanglement and reference frames

All that should give you an idea roughly what I am on about. There is also a block of detail about how and why particles enter "Uberspace" and about cosmology and as to the nature and "identification" of the supersymmetric twins of particles (fermions). The existence of "branes" in their own right as "more" than just places for "electrons" (the "electronic shells"). The fourier nature of particles and waves and how they "swap" domains. The idea of "braneworlds". These all flow from some ideas by Ed Witten and 11 dimensional String Theory and string "unification" on the greater manifold.

In the end all I am saying is higher dimensions in "local" pockets. A "simple" understanding of Gravity and Mass based on Einstein without particles... utilizing the spin of the brane. No "particles" at all actually. Particles constructed from "photons" inside of closed dimensional spaces. This is related to the topic on particle not being able to spread and photons can.

Cheers (and welcome)

PS: I will get back to you soon Zephyr. Just a little "tired" right now. huh.gif


--------------------
"Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle"
Top
Zephir
Posted: Sep 30 2005, 09:03 AM


AWT founder
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 9783
Joined: 27-August 05

Positive Feedback: 48.7%
Feedback Score: -71


QUOTE (Good Elf @ Sep 29 2005, 10:51 AM)
For instance that illustration by Zephyr is fine for a particle with mass but is not what happens to "photons" which spread. The actual shape and size of photon packets is not a "sinusoid" as in water they are more like circulating pancakes that spread ever larger with time subtending the same solid angle from the source.

You dipole in 3D looks like this, of course.
QUOTE (Good Elf @ Sep 29 2005, 10:51 AM)
The reason why photons spread and particles with mass do not is found here....

I don't really think so. Please quote the sentence from there, which explains this, by our opinion.


--------------------
Aether in one sentence: The particles of reality are formed by observation of reality through density fluctuations of particles of reality.
Please, have look at my posts history [http://superstruny.aspweb.cz] with full-text search before asking for details. Thank you!
Top
Good Elf
Posted: Sep 30 2005, 03:08 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4161
Joined: 4-December 04

Positive Feedback: 73.08%
Feedback Score: 26


Hi Zephir,

"Real" Electromagnetic fields are quite different to the treatment in "elementary texts". The "only" correct treatment of electromagnetism is the use of the advanced and retarded potentials in the near-field to indicate the real "shape" of the EM wave. There is a whole lot of difference between "real" fields and almost all illustrations in the textbooks. They are just wrong. I do not know why but I think that this is because the treatment is mathematically "complex" and takes into account the distribution of the sources instant by instant. With computers this is a "doddle" but before the advent of computers all the texts "ignored" the more complex science of exact field solutions.

I will supply a link here and you can see what a difference this makes to the student view of this process. I would also point out these electric and magnetic field "loops" are vector closed loop paths and they "circulate" around the centers of the field where they are successively maximia and minima respectively. Exactly along the "x-axis" the electric field strength if plotted on a sheet of graph paper follows "almost" a sinusoid (there is variation near the source). Off axis the value of the field is not the classic sinusoid. Near to the source when the source is considered as a distributed set of charges, the field is more of an "inductive" nature. Read the commentary on this "exact" solution set on the web page... you may find this a great insight into the processes of "real world" waves.

Animations of the field patterns radiating from dipole antennas

The first link here is similar to the one I have been showing you but better animated and shows energy "suck-back" in the near-field. As in your illustration this occurs when the field loops are "completed" and "nipped off" from the source. Other EM sources are simply only inductive in nature and do not radiate (these do though - they are more "useful"). It also illustrates how the "pancakes" evolve in shape with time, the energy density falling off rapidly but maintaining the "particle" hidden in "Uberspace".

While individual "photons" evolve as circular pancakes of ever larger extent but constant wavelength, the "group" radiation pattern is "toroidally symmetric". It is not at all "simple". The other point is that this illustration though three dimensional is still only a "very thin slice" across the dipole. For the emission of an "infinite" number of photons is rotationally "almost symmetric" but crucially not quite symmetric. Individual photons will have a similar size and subtend a constant solid angle from the center. Thus they "spread" (perfect inverse square law relationship) but they will still collapse when they strike a target. Photon wave packets (just for the record) also spread across space as well. To carry energy the surfaces are all spherically symmetric this is the expression of "exact" inverse square relationship laws. This is the only way energy can be radiated. Deviation from this shape for photons radiating is "impossible".

Radiation from a short dipole

This second animation shows a "short dipole"... Down the page the segment through the region of the antenna shows the electric field in a "quadrant" of space but also shows "on the floor" the magnetic field loops "threading" the electric field "loops". Both the electric and magnetic field loops have direction and should have some little arrows on them. Each alternative group of loops should have the arrow reversing clockwise then anticlockwise. All loops spread in space with time. All these "geometric" points have deep significance that seems to be swept away by elementary treatments. It is clear to me this understanding is an "open secret" and anyone could find this information but nobody seems to understand it's significance to "String Theory" or to the Geometric Langland's Program. Without this the whole theory is a nonsense and cannot describe the aspects of force and energy involved.

Though this is an "interesting" picture, real quanta are never seen and only by "testing" the field to derive experimental verification of these results is it possible to see this is indeed what happens. Real quanta are "hidden" and can only be detected in reality by "interactions".

By "insertion" of a "mass field" into the source this adds extra "curvature" to "Space-time" and also to "Uberspace" (... especially "Uberspace") making the fall off of energy greater than an inverse square relationship. The "suck-back" becomes "perfect" over a larger volume of space and the field for the quantum particle is now "inductive", and is fully returned to the source, and it resides everywhere in the near-field (evanescent field). Of course any objects in the "range" of this now massive "particle" could be an opportunity for an interaction by "tunneling" since the particle exists over all that extended volume. This is the exact opposite of the near-field equivalent of the radiation process only in reverse (radiation absorption). This explains the reason for boson range for bosons with mass and infinite range for photons (the exchange particle for force in our Universe). The latter "spreads". This is not "dissipating" the energy since the real particle is not to be found there but in the hidden "Uberspace".

The discussion of the three regions of space into static fields, near-field and the far-field are "built into the quantum postulates" for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationships and into some of the other aspects of the postulates and are entirely "arbitary". Naturally in the 1920's when the quantum theory was being formulated... such treatments of the electromagnetic field were not available. It is "interesting" to speculate if such full and exact treatments were available what conclusions they may have arrived at.

This goes doubly for time dependent solutions of the wave equations in three dimensions. They were not used because they too are subject to near-field phenomena and exact solutions were far beyond the slide-rules of the day,

Cheers


--------------------
"Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle"
Top

Topic Options Pages: (15) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use