A missed unification?, Unifying relativity and quantum physics

Hi Good Elf!

From your reference....
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass/ The Origin of Mass

This should be worthy of a good discussion.
I would say that he has taken an approach that would lead him to my "spot".
As it stands it could/would complement some of the proposals of the RS model.
jal

Hi Jal, Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,

Yes Jal, it also leads to "my" spot as well. This all ties in with a reciprocal space interpretation. A quick look at the way Dr. Albrecht Giese resolves this mass problem involves the use of the effects of the near field. He has a particularly "easy going" view of this problem based on "zero mass particles". The mass of particles in his working are a near-field phenomena, I believe it is electromagnetic retarded potentials, and can be treated as background independent and leading to the effects of local mass spacetime curvature as a "pseudo-force". I would caution all readers to how this is interpreted since Giese is a mixture of very good ideas and some "less than optimal ones". Still it is his point of view and I respect that. I have my own and I am sure you have yours and this computation is only one part of a fully developed theory. A little from column A and a little from column B. I have also used ideas from Williamson and Van der Mark's paper ... out of strict context as well but I like to recognize the "piece in the jigsaw" where others have had a very good idea. Recall Einsteins 1905 paper was pretty rudimentary when it first appeared. These little "pieces" are all "rudimentary" in themselves but easy to recognize. An elves duty is not to solve the Universe but to show a reasonable context to place all this "String Theory" as realistic Physics.

All this only makes sense when you consider the complete picture and it is always difficult to express these complex issues in this forum with the tremendous graphic limitations impressed on the system as "management". Only a very few images allowed per post and these are "crushed" to reduce the footprint and the pixel count. Of course this reduces their value since they often become unreadable. Everyone should view these images by opening them in a full window where you can easily see them "uncrushed" (Mozilla... right click, view image). These "management" issues are reducing the science aspects of this forum and making it difficult to get ideas across. There is also the 1 hour cutoff limit for alterations which locks in problems such as images being shifted and not able to be corrected or missed typographic errors.

Cheers

Ladara7, and all..


This seems too late, but I'll post nonetheless.

Did Ladara7 forget this thread, or just not find the need to respond back?


I have seen some things that have raised my eyebrows, but the opening (and sole) post of Ladara7 is probably the most instinctive "stab" at a solution to, at least some of problems in Physics, that I've ever seen.


the relevant (IMO) snips:

Does anyone else think that deriving c and h from a single source, and this source, being the medium itself, could give rise to the particles and interactions that Science has measured, simply through autopoeisis, is possible? Simple, within our dimensions, and broad (if not complete) in scope.


ciao!

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Sep 18 2006, 06:51 AM

Just contrary/in reverse to that, and in it is great deal of misconceptions of the contemporary (or even wider) "physics".

Hi TRoc, Jal, Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, Dennis, rpenner et al,

The way you word this is ambiguous. Do you mean to exclude my views or do you mean this in an inclusive statement... looking for opinions? There are plenty of cases for relationships between C and h such as de Broglie's relationship as you can see here.

or indeed that conjecture of Planck Length...

I am not happy with this because there is no basis in experiment.

There is no convincing argument I have heard here or anywhere that C and h should be able to be derived from each other. One is the speed of light and the other is the the amount of energy per Hertz of frequency for quanta. Realizing that a Hertz (cycle per second) and a Joule are SI units and do not represent anything in themselves since fractional Hertz and large numbers of Hertz are indeed possible this is a simple linear relationship that defines the "distribution" of energy in our Universe. The other fact is the greater the energy the smaller the dimensions of the disturbance. This is an inverse relationship to energy and size. To some this is counter to the way people sometimes intuitively think. To some more energy the bigger it is... this is dead wrong. The greater the energy the smaller it is... that is it's wavelength. I have no doubt though that h defines the geometry of our Universe but in all conjectures you need to have the experiment that demonstrates the fact is true.

I suspect that since we equate Mass with energy (E = MC^2) then large aggregations of matter indicate a large and proportionate amount of energy. This is the result of the way fermions behave rather than the way electromagnetic energy behaves which are bosons and tend to reflect collective behavior. Above I have indicated what I think is a reasonable equation that relates mass with Planck's constant and the speed of light to the radius of a single "particle". You need to decide just what a "particle" is though...

It is not a full answer and it is not my idea anyway as you can see, but it is a start.
The Origins of Mass
Note: this is the only "bit" that I like of this theory but it is a pretty good bit, and quite simple. To make sense of this you would need to work in non-degenerate space. That would mean that everything has some extension and you cannot ignore the fact that there is no such thing as a "point particle". The answer is viewed as "Orbital Angular Momentum" which is one of the possible spins of a particle. Some particles have two "orbiting" sub-particles and others three (quarks?) and the orbit may involve a winding ratio of "N". I notice you did not comment on it... can I ask why?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 18 2006, 03:14 PM

Hi Good Elf,

First of all, I consider your physical way of thinking highly "open" and please think of my short sentences as of "hints".

Considering Planck's scale, you are totally right, even theoretically it is always "assumed".
Only valid QGT would be that one which "explains" it.

Thanks for interesting link.

With all respect

Hi Tura, al, Ladara7, Confused2, MDT, StevenA, rpenner et al,

Thanks "I think" for the compliment. I actually do not understand your one line comment but I am sure it is helpful. I am only the "elf" around here.

It has occurred to me that there are actually two possible ways to proceed here. You can either unify through quantizing space or linearizing quantum theory, showing QFT is the external expression of a deeper underlying "continuum". I fully realize that the way I have proceeded in almost everything I do is against the trend. The success of quantum theory has been so overwhelmingly total that we have collectively wiped from our minds any other way to solve the question of quantization. Yet a careful examination of the "evidence" shows that quantization is a process that occurs naturally from the truncation of continuous processes in time and space.

One possible way to proceed as you have rightly suggested is quantization of gravity. Most of these theories have centered around quantization at the Planck Length. A Planck Length quantum would require an enormous source of energy beyond the abilities of any technology now or in the future to be able to harness. Of course there is Loop Quantum Gravity that is popular around this Forum too but I am resistant to it on the grounds of a lack of physical evidence. My suggestion flies in the face of convention but is consistent with Einstein's Theories leaving them all "almost" intact but suggesting that Special Relativity is actually more important than General Relativity especially at high velocity and "zero" velocity. That "gravity" is not a force but a "pseudo-force" and mass is an expression of electromagnetic processes in a higher dimensional context. In effect restating the General Principle of Equivalence as saying gravitational acceleration is not only identical to inertial acceleration... Mass itself is an expression of "internal" acceleration within a confined dimensional reciprocal environment. A symmetry embedding of Einstein's Equivalence Concepts inside/outside the "next dimensional level" of of our "Holographic Universe".

My consistent view is to reinterpret much of the physics in terms of this quantization being solely the expression of "process" in which energy is transported. To me the ideas of quantization with all the various quantum postulates is a framework which ignores the harmonic nature of energy. QFT has been required to ignore much of the interdependence of properties in favor of a particle view of reality that ignores connection in preference to discreteness. Of course it does have it's uses and is easier to handle mathematically. An expression of this is de Broglie's Hypothesis. I see this as the low velocity end of Special Relativity... I have discussed this previously as an expression of an "evanescent zone" around a "particle" which goes from total lack of locality when v = 0 or m -> 0, to a tightly confined world-line path as v -> C.

Wave and Particle are two aspects of a reciprocal nature in our Universe that is contained in Fourier Theory or other closely allied Harmonic Theories on a "sphere" which treat the separate domains of time and frequency or space and "reciprocal" space... as a higher dimensional Hilbert Space that is confined by the geometry of the space itself. This connection exists in additional dimensional spaces that are not linearly connected to our space but harmonically connected. It is a variant on "String Theory" or actually a Membrane Theory in which sub-atomic particles represent externally small dimensional environments that are defined by a light cone as seen from its reciprocal space (which is immensely large due to its reciprocal nature and defined by reciprocal time == frequency). A fully geometric theory of reality linked holographically with our Universe by higher dimensional "matter waves" through "harmonics" and "resonance".

In this way I am not trying to quantize space at the smallest scale of the Planck Length but see an expression of quantization in a reciprocal process in which fermionic particles are defined by Planck's Constant "Bubbles" blown in the "space" of higher dimensions and existing as "quantum superpositions". This can be seen in the fermionic "collection" of quarks of a proton (simplest Hydrogen atom) and its harmonically related bosonic "s-particles"... which is a "superposition" of the harmonic "shells" we term the electronic structure of atoms... a hybrid state. To me this state exists regardless of electrons to fill them and are at a slightly different scale to the fermions. This is Quantum Electrodynamics. The electrons and photons "fit this structure" like a hand in a glove.

String theory starts with photons and we should be seeing what the theory is telling us from there.

If you logged into this forum you could look back over my ideas on this by clicking on my name and checking out my post history. I strongly suggest that you log in for all of our benefit since anyone could use your persona and no one would know otherwise. I have had a couple of bad experiences with this.

Cheers

On the contrary - we can even say, without string model the quantization of energy would be pretty hard to explain. The quantization phenomena is closely related to the resonance condition for elastic string. Just try to check "scan frequency " check box on the DTHML applet (sorry, just for MS IE browser only...) and watch the spectrum peaks, which will be generated!



This post has been edited by Zephir on Sep 20 2006, 04:29 AM

Hi zephir,

Thanks for the applet but I do not really know just what this is meant to illustrate other than resonance. OK we have a "string" vibrating but the context of this "resonance" is lost. I suppose what I am trying to communicate is the way in which evanescent processes are able to to feed quantum processes and perhaps visa versa (quantum back action).

Obviously there is Schrodinger's Wave Equation and the way that is "harmonic" but remember these processes, according to the current interpretation, are "waves of probability". I would seriously disregard any idea that you could have "resonance" in probability waves. Yet I am convinced that "resonance" is a purely physical wave phenomena that has been lost from current theory except in a highly abstracted non-physical form. It appears to me to reflect an obsession in the direction of current theory to interpret all things as particle in nature and to "bury" the wavelike nature which is actually connecting everything together.

I think LQG has taken a lot of thunder from String Theory and your interpretation of the Aether Theory is "wavelike" in nature but I can't see these waves as being "gravitational" with such short-range non-linearity. "Gravity" would need to be far stronger than electromagnetism to warp spacetime in such a way on the small scale. The other point of the theory is the necessity and "origin" for such strong radiation of gravitons to provide this deformational "flux". I may be wrong but it seems to me to be "non-physical" to be dropping off so quickly with distance. Still... it may be tested "soon" according to that space mission being proposed in the Science News Reports.

Cheers

Quantum mechanics isn't there to make life difficult .. it's the result of trying to make sense of experimental data.

Is there a classical explanation for the way electrons don't radiate and fall into the nucleus of atoms ..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_atom (for starters)

Black body radiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation

Quantum mechanics doesn't predict "resonance in probability waves" ..

see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html

-C2.

Hi GE, Zephir, Turya, C2...



Your opinion would never be excluded by me, nor any one else's. I participate in these forums specifically for the input and feedback of others. I am, however, sometimes too vague in my posts. This is mostly from a lack of sufficient time, and my "delivery style" seems to take longer than others!

I posted to see, more specifically, what were the thoughts of other people on the idea of a natural "minimum" being compared with a natural "maximum" is the same system (Physics), with the possibility of their having a common source, or derivation.

So, from what I can gather, GE notes that he has never heard an argument for this, and withholds his opinion for later on the potential value of this idea.

Thanks for the link too, that is similar in some ways to my way of thinking as well. In addition to the equations you provided, any discussion of the similarities in c and h are going to lead to the uncertainty principle, and the "zero point".


[somehow, I missed your question "Some particles have two "orbiting" sub-particles and others three (quarks?) and the orbit may involve a winding ratio of "N". I notice you did not comment on it... can I ask why?" previously. A. Did you mention that before?, and B. Were you directing that at Turya, or myself? ]



Now I see that C2 has joined us, with the semi-philosophical statement that "Quantum mechanics isn't there to make life difficult .. it's the result of trying to make sense of experimental data." I agree that its' "purpose" is not to make things difficult, but in practice it has. And, as GE has just said, it is hard to argue with the system because it is so accurate. The same goes for the competition for the throne, G&SR.

So, what I believe is the proper place to begin is, where these two systems might come from, rather than where they might "come together". This requires heavy, and thorough "cleaning", and a re-grouping. Too many inconsistent, or even contradictory definitions are inherent in the existing system. I'm going to point one out right now.

Just for fun (humor me), would the Four of you {Good Elf, Turya, Confused2, and Zephir} reply with your personal definition of the 2 words "resonance" and "harmonic". You can include a quote from your favorite source, but please try to keep it short, and to the point. I will eat my socks out in the middle of the street if we can all agree completely on the definitions of these 2 words, and very important (#1 IMO) phenomena. Extra points for definitions that rely on a mathematical principle.


Then, I believe, that we could have a meaningful discussion on this. Especially the idea that the speed of light might have a mathematical reason for being what it is, and that that reason might influence the minimum quanta of energies that we find. It all ties together with no zero-energy, and the mathematics that are required to match the data. Schrodinger was probably the closest, from modern Physics.


ciao!

T.Roc

The spectrum and distinct quantum states are nothing, but resonance effects of standing wave pockets...

Harmonic = can be expressed in terms of trigonometric function (sin/cos)
Resonance = the state of a system in which the external harmonic perturbation are cumulated and amplificated.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Sep 20 2006, 05:48 PM

Hi Troc, (et al)

As requested ..

Resonance .. anything that repeats a number of times where the energy remaining in the resonant system at the end of a cycle is greater than the amount of energy lost during the cycle.


Harmonic (in this context.. from Wiki)

In acoustics and telecommunication, the harmonic of a wave is a component frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency. For a sine wave it is an integer multiple of the frequency of the wave. For example, if the frequency is f, the harmonics have frequency 2f, 3f, 4f, etc.

-C2.

Hi!
This might be relevant.
http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v40/387.p...20oscillator%22
Wave Packets of a Harmonic Oscillator with Various Degrees of Rigidity
Qiong-Gui Lin¤
Department of Physics, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
and
China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (World Laboratory),
P. O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, Chinay
Can I get extra points?
jal

First of all, thanks to Good Elf for a comprehensive reply. Appreciate it. Many interesting thoughts and I have few re-, but let's stay in the frame of this thread.

I've some remarks considering interesting A. Giese's link, but as hint interesting could be to compare it with Ph. Kanarev's "reinterpretation of physics". In my view, most interesting is a basic idea: h as clear dynamic representation of angular momentum (similar to D. Deutch).

Also, to be simple

Resonance: all "by side" phenomena of

f = f_0

for two given wave systems.

Harmonics:

n*f; n E N

for a given sinusoidal wave.

In the scope of the theme, let's think of "gravitomagnetic-space resonance" as a direct natural way to the "unification"

Best to all