Dear Don ,
When you say It has a minimum velocity of something like 3.7 x 10^-37 m/s.
What is it exactly ,if I correlate with the mass ,it is not possible in fact .Are you sure about ^-37 m/s .
I think it is the contrary for the link velocity and mass .
Regards
Steve
Steve,
You are reminding me that I need to take another pass at explaining my work and theory. It is not as clear as I would like it. Does this help in answering your question?
1. I start by fully believing the work of a) Zeno b) Newton c) Einstein and d) deBroglie
2. I saw how a synthesis of their work could answer some of the question of modern physics. I feel like fellow essayist Terry Padden that physics needs to become reasonable again. I believe what I have done is reasonable and simple when compared to "The Standard Model of Particle Physics".
3. Zeno: There is a big divide between math and physics that if not remedied leaves our understanding of motion incomplete. My remedy to explaining motion is that particles "hop". Particles move without being seen moving, that is they appear with no motion and then vanish only to reappear with no motion at a different time and position. This may strike you as strange at first but is no stranger than how we see motion on a movie screen or electronic display. Note space and time are conventional only the motion is a bit weird.
4. deBroglie: There is a matter wave for particles. This means that the electron "must" move. This immediately creates a problem in that the electron is a hunk of matter. Matter by definition can have a stationary position. I combine Zeno and deBroglie and say that the electron (and all QM particles) hops back and forth about its matter wavelength to remain at a stationary position. When the electron hops in one direction it moves in that direction. Up to this point I have satisfied Zeno and deBroglie.
5. Newton: All matter requires a force to get it moving (inertia) and all matter experiences the force of gravity. Now I do something that may seem strange I say that the hopping electron hops "because" of inertia and gravity. I provide some equations to show how this is done. I can see my readers crying FOUL, you just can not do that arbitrarily! But it is the same thing Newton did when he created the equation F=Gm1m2/d2. He just said it was so and we tried it and liked it and got used to it. I am hoping my equation gets some agreement too.
6. Einstein: The number c represents the ultimate speed and if you have a fast moving object the space it sees is shortened by the Lorentz transform. This transform applies to all velocities and not just fast ones.
7. Using the above reasoning and equations I solved for Vo the minimum velocity for particles.
The equation for Vo has the particle mass as a variable. I plugged in the mass of the electron and the velocity 3.7 x 10^-37 m/s resulted. Yes, the minimum velocity of an electron hopping back and forth (maintaining itself about a fixed position in free space) is very slow. But the important point is that it is never zero.
8. From this beginning it is not hard (compared to string theory) to explain gravity.
This is the skinny. With this preamble I think the essay of mine will be more understandable.
And I feel this theory is somewhat strange but it is crystal clear when placed against "modern theoretical physics". It has three dimensions of space and a now, how reasonable can you get! (thanks Terry Padden).
Steve, I appreciate your interest.
Thanks,
Don L.
Hi Don. What do you think of the following in relation to gravity, electromagnetism, and your last post?
It is the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations that makes these observations possible, AS IT ALLOWS US TO SEE FARTHER.
THE INCREASING TRANSPARENCY/INVISIBILITY OF SPACE IN ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS EXPLAINS THE REDSHIFT.
Astronomical/telescopic observations and dreams both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams. Both dreams and astronomical/telescopic observations involve increasing invisibility/transparency of space. Telescopic/astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent.
Hello Don ,
Thanks ,I see more clear indeed .In all case it is very relevant your ideas and developments .I read them with interest.
Indeed the important point is the non zero limit .
I agree too about our actual physics ,it is time to make a balance between maths and physics in my opinion .It exists too much inutiles math extrapolations without limits .It is more a confusion than an improvement of physics .
3D and the time constant is very important .
Congratulations and good luck at this constest .
Best Regards
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for your interest and good luck in your efforts.
Don L.
Frank,
Gravity and electro-magnetism are ways we name and explain the forces we see in the world around us. There are lots of ways of doing this.
Your way of looking at it is an interesting type of "clipped sentence" logic that I have no way of reproducing the experience of for myself. I seem to be missing the key to unlock the dream. So, I would ask you how do you think my essay fits in with your concepts?
Don L.
Thanks dear Don ,
Hope my efforts to create this Humanistic sciences center shall permit to create it really .It is my reason of life the creation of this center .All are welcome for synergies of course ,we must act .
Thanks for you explaination.
I see in your work a real desire to correlate pragmatically our models.
You superimpose interesting ideas of Zeno, Einstein ,de broglie ....
Here is my answer .
1,2 Indeed the reasonable is better than the not rationality ,we like our 3 D in this time constant,fortunaly .
3 Indeed about the "without movelment appearings" it is bizare like hidden systems .
About 4 ,the waves indeed and the particles are linked in a specific rotating system implying movements and mass.The system can be stationary localy and only that ,it is the gravity and its stability.The electrons are stables .
Thus it is logic the duality is linked with the rotatuing spheres still .The two comportments are linked thus.
5,Newton,your point of vue about inertie is interesting ,but if all is in this equation of attraction ,of forces.There is thus a main cause of this gravity .For me these rot spheres.The cause of these rotations implying mass is the intrinsic code and its informations,inside the quantum architecture .
Thus the main code is inside the main central sphere .Like that all has a cause and effects .
6,7 I need some explainations because there I don't understand what is this velocity ,it is not possible dear don I think .what is your equation to arrive to this velocity .what kind of velocity do you use and why this link with mass.
8 there I think you make an error if you insert strings ,already what your origin of mass ,gravity is on the false road ,don't take that bad ,I just want to undertand your line of reasoning and your tools .In fact in a theory ,all fundamentals equations can dance easily in the model .It is in fact a proof of the universality of the theory .
Your model is very interesting if you synchronize some fundamentals I think,the velocity at this scale is different than your near zero limit .
Your velocity makes me think to a Bose Einstein condensate where we can play with thermodynamical variables like temperature .Thus there I agree ,the velocities can decrease but not in our stable system I think .
Best Regards
Steve
Hi Steve,
I have to consider my own theory "bazaar". Then I take a look at the Standard Model, string theory, and many worlds theory and I reconsider the meaning of "bazaar" and realized that that it can be a "transfinite" concept:)
It also makes me glad that this contest has so many entries that lament the course physics has taken and are promoting ways to make it rational and reasonable.
The conversation is wonderful.
Thanks,
Don L.
Hi Don ,
Yes ,viva el reasonability thus .ahahaha what a bazaar ,We are all lost in the imaginaries and their infinities .Fortunaly ...it exists the rational .After all ,an apple will fall down always towards the center of our Earth ,now this constant is not a real constant but of course the decimal is far of the ,.....after all it is like that in this Universe .A planet is a planet ,a bee is a bee and a galaxy is a galaxy.
A big bazaar this Earth system ,an incredible bazaar in the ocean of the irrational .But we evolve fortunaly .
Regards
Steve
Hello dear Don ,
How are you ,fine I hope and your bazaar like you named it .
Best Regards
Steve
Hello Don,
Well I'm returning a bit late to your forum, but better late than never;-) I return to your November 2 post:
1. I don't exactly know why Feynman's concepts aren't more widely used for mainstream physics education. One of the problems I see is that physics education starts with classical physics and introduces quantum physics in a historical way (blackbody radiation, hydrogen atom, wave-particle duality...). Feynman's presentation doesn't fit easily in this history, or it comes really at the end of the story (in the 1940s). That's a pity. I think it's possible to develop pedagogical approaches that start from quantum physics and end with classical forces. That would be a more deductive way to teach physics, because it would start at the most fundamental: photons and electrons.
2. Do you remember where in the talks Feynman indicated that isolated electrons could spontanously emit and absorb photons? Maybe he's indeed talking about virtual photons? There's much to say about virtual photons, but I'm still quite confused about them. To me a photon is a photon, and I prefer to think about them as real. Otherwise, spontaneous emission is well documented on the web (for example at wikipedia) but in quantum optics, it is a special case of stimulated emission (by the vacuum state). And I don't know about spontaneous absorption. In my view, absorption is always stimulated (by the photon that is absorbed).
3. What do you mean when saying that the photon really has a mass? What experimental consequences? About your minimum velocity of the electron, I haven't understood yet exactly how it emerges.
Greetings,
Arjen
Argen good to hear back from you. Your recommendation of the Australian web site with the Feynman lectures was just what I needed. I went on to read QED and Six Easy Pieces, along with the less technical the Joy of Finding Things Out.
1. Yes, physics is taught historically, classical first and then the historical fumbling into the quantum. And at the end of this I think Feynman should be required reading, because he emphasizes the "unknowable physicality of quantum particles" which he believes will perhaps never be deciphered but can be known via mathematics and his diagrams.
2. Feynman says all the strangeness of quantum mechanics can be seen in the double slit experiment where an electron beam hits a target encompassing two slits. It is postulated that an electron goes thru either one slit or the other. If we do not follow how the electron goes (give it energy to enable our sight) we get an interference pattern (on a screen behind the slits) making it seem that the electron went thru both slits simultaneously (the way a water wave does). Hence there is something wrong with the postulate that the electron (which was considered a thing) goes thru one slit or the other.
3. Heisenberg came to the conclusion (probably first) that the electron is not a thing and that it and all particles must obey an uncertainty principle. It is this uncertainty principle which prevents us from saying that the electron went thru one slit or the other. So, we still can believe that the electron goes thru one slit or the other but we cannot determine which one because of the uncertainty principle.
4. I believe there is another cleaner way to look at why the electron goes thru both slits simultaneously. I postulate that the electron and all particles (including photons) move in a peculiar way. They appear at a time and place and they reappear at an adjacent time and place. This way of moving fits very nicely with the deBroglie wave equation thus the name Digital Wave Theory. The electron approaching a double slit to within a wavelength makes a hop and appears on the other side without having to invoke uncertainty. The electron still obeys all of the Feynman rules, but now there is no mystery about how it can go thru both holes simultaneously. And I believe the nature of gravity comes about and can be derived from the way that particles move by hopping over time and space.
5. Here is the reasoning about photons having mass:
a. I start with a particle with mass and say it moves by hopping.
b. The particle is always moving and thus hopping because it is a wave according to deBroglie.
c. I derived a minimum velocity that this particle of mass m can have. It cannot be zero because it must move to be a wave.
d. The equation derived for the minimum velocity is a second order polynomial that has two roots. When plotted one root looks like a slow moving massive particle. The other root looks like a photon moving very, very close to c except at very, very high energies.
e. Thus, the general particle with mass m that I started with is really two particles, one can be seen as ordinary matter the other can be seen as a photon. These photons as seen in the plot show in the essay travel slightly slower than c and this speed varies with wavelength.
f. Photons have mass because they are one of the solutions to an equation that starts with a generalized particle with mass. The consequence of having this mass is that they do not quite travel at c, but approach it so closely that our current instruments and experiments are not yet in range and least 10 more digits of accuracy is required to see this at visual wavelengths.
6. I have this one criticism of Feynman in that he did not explain why electrons moving uniformly in a straight line emit and absorb photons. Perhaps I missed something that was obvious? I request that anyone who knows to pass the information along to me. So, Arjen when you find out let me know.
7. This theory of particles moving as digital waves fits very nicely with superconductivity. At absolute zero the electrons still have velocity and can sustain a current. The material it is moving through has a crystal structure that provides a clean landing spot for an electron if it is moving with hops at just the right wavelength. When the velocity of the electron matches the spaces available for it to land and superconductivity results.
Arjin, this contest gets somewhat boring when the judging starts, and it was a pleasure to respond to your post. I think I may have gotten a little long winded. Thanks for the opportunity!
Best of Luck to you and all,
Don Limuti
Arjin,
I did not do a very good job let me try again.
I do not show how a minimum velocity for a particles emerges. I postulate a minimum velocity and show how it can be accounted for in terms of gravity and inertia. I can then get an equation for this postulated velocity Vo. When this equation for Vo is solved it shows both particle and photons as the two roots of the equation.
I think this answers your question better than the longer one above.
Thanks,
Don Limuti
Hi all ,
More a sphere turns, less is its mass .m v .simply
Regards
Steve
Hi Steve,
I am fine, and I hope you are too.
As you noticed my spelling can stand some improvement, occasionally it is bizarre.
In the bazaar of physics, if I may use that metaphor, there are many many theories and constructions based upon measurements and mathematical (logical) constructions. Some of them are bizarre. In particular quantum mechanics as expressed by Feynman as unknowable except via the mathematics and his diagrams is bizarre along with the philosophy of shut up and calculate.
I do respect Feynman for acknowledging that there is room for doubt and that eventually a physical explanation for what is happening on the quantum level may be presented. He was very honest in his expression of how bizarre his position was and that he could not see a way around it. I believe he made such a strong point of this in order to get others off their butts and remedy the situation.
Doubt is the essence of science.
Terry P. and Arjen D. and others have presented essays that further this cause of bringing reason to physics.
I am interested in your spheres, and hope to hear more about them.
Don Limuti
Hi Don,
You did a very good job in your first (longer) explanation. It formulated differently what you wrote in your essay. To be honest, I hadn't re-read your essay before asking my questions of Jan 10. When I read your answer, I was reminded of your nice graph with the four roots. Your model is creative, lambda-hops account for the wave-particle nature of particles. Yet honestly said, I have difficulty to see how this can be related with the more formal part of quantum mechanics: state vector, amplitude and probabilities as square amplitudes, as well as with other characteristics of particles (spin, charge...).
With respect to your point 6, I don't think Feynman could have explained that electrons travelling in a straight line emit or absorb photons, because his theory doesn't predict that, and as far as I know, this isn't observed by experiments (elsewise I have missed a point...).
Good luck for tomorrow;-)
Arjen
Argen,
I am hoping (not to be confused with hopping) that some bright person will find the link that this theory has to the more formal aspects of quantum mechanics. I think the missing link goes something like: if you look for a particle at its wavelength crossings the energy needed to measure its presence is small. If the particle is observed further away from its crossing more energy will be needed to bring it out of superposition for the measurement. If you are not looking at where your are measuring the particle (because you assume it is continuous thingy) then the whole process looks like a crap shoot and you think of it as involving probabilities.
The work that I have presented is far from a theory of everything. It is more like: Hey guys and girls, look what I found! Particles and photons are more closely related than expected and Gravity is fundamental on the quantum scale. Right now Digital Wave Theory is just a toy. I am hoping that some in the FQXi group will enjoying playing with it.
Argen, Thanks for your support, good questions, fine essay and very informative web presence. I am rooting for you to win.
Don Limuti
Hi dear Don,
Thank you, I am well,it could be better but that goes hihihi.
I liked your essay and I begin to know the works of Feynman, it is really very interesting.
I thank you for my spheres, I have still a lot to do you know 34 years old,this year I must stabilize all that.
After I will publish and will improve the theory.I must create this sciences center too, you are welcome dear don when it will be created of course, but I am a bad administrator, but I evolve.
I will tell you the evolution.
Best Regards
Steve
