Unification Of The Forces, A New Aproach

[devin553344]

Where does the " inbound electromagnetic wave originate from ? What is the source ?

 

How do matter waves propagate with no momentum ?

It would be a gamma source so probably nuclear fission or fusion. Which could be a radioactive source material. I've heard of other methods, but for the sake of control, I won't list them.

[devin553344]

Where does the " inbound electromagnetic wave originate from ? What is the source ?

 

How do matter waves propagate with no momentum ?

Matter waves have rest mass and momentum.

[current]

Matter waves have rest mass and momentum.

Yet you separate matter waves from momentum waves . In your post #51 .

Edited August 30, 2020 by current

[devin553344]

Yet you separate matter waves from momentum waves .

Well as far as I've been able to figure out, a momentum wave is a ripple in the fabric of space-time, that also has a particle or photon nature. That ripple when separated into crests and valleys now has a different form of motion, it no longer ripples thru space as a wave in the sea, but instead must move, so it has the original wave energy plus motion of moving the wave thru space. So it might be said to move and have velocity instead of undulate and ripple with a propagation speed.

[current]

Well as far as I've been able to figure out, a momentum wave is a ripple in the fabric of space-time, that also has a particle or photon nature. That ripple when separated into crests and valleys now has a different form of motion, it no longer ripples thru space as a wave in the sea, but instead must move, so it has the original wave energy plus motion of moving the wave thru space. So it might be said to move and have velocity instead of undulate and ripple with a propagation speed.

What is the fabric of space and time ? Both being separate , fabrics . Edited August 30, 2020 by current

[devin553344]

What is the fabric of space and time .

Now that is an interesting topic. As far as I can figure out any particle that has an infinitely extending electric field and matter field originate space-time from itself. This allows for all particles (like electrons and protons) to have their own time and distance as experienced by itself. So relativity:

 

L=L0*(1-v^2/c^)

 

and

 

T=T0/(1-v^2/c^2)

 

is experienced by the particle individually and collectively as a DeBroglie matter wave.

 

Now all objects or instances of particles have their own frame of reference. This fits with relativity I think.

 

Electromagnetic radiation is then the change in the matter or electric fields of those particles and emanates out to infinity thru the electric and matter field of the particle (which as I believe extends outward to infinity) as a ripple and a particle.

[current]

Now that is an interesting topic. As far as I can figure out any particle that has an infinitely extending electric field and matter field originate space-time from itself.

 

Yet neither space nor time has any fabric unto them selves .

 

If I change time in any equation , this does not change Physical Movements , the dynamics, of any kind , by any-thing . To the Physical Object time is irrelevant . Because the objects movements are governed by the environment , the properties of the object and the interactions with other objects . Time only matters to us because we are trying to understand the object , measure of movement and why .

Edited August 30, 2020 by current

[devin553344]

Yet neither space nor time has any fabric unto them selves .

 

If I change time in any equation , this does not change Physical Movements , the dynamics, of any kind , by any-thing . To the Physical Object time is irrelevant . Because the objects movements are governed by the environment , the properties of the object and the interactions with other objects . Time only matters to us because we are trying to understand the object , measure of movement and why .

I look at space as a distance, and time as a passage really, you can say fabric yes because it has curvature to the distance and therefore as a change in the distance over the distance of the field.

 

But I really didn't get into space-time too far in my studies.

 

I did a thought experiment and said, a lone particle out in the void has no real velocity or passage of time. Add a second particle and now it has a relative time and velocity. The two objects are benchmarks for each other.

[current]

I look at space as a distance, and time as a passage really, you can say fabric yes because it has curvature to the distance and therefore as a change in the distance over the distance of the field.

 

But I really didn't get into space-time too far in my studies.

 

I did a thought experiment and said, a lone particle out in the void has no real velocity or passage of time. Add a second particle and now it has a relative time and velocity. The two objects are benchmarks for each other.

To your last statement ; disagree

 

A lone particle can have a real velocity . It just can't be measured because it has no reference of comparison . In change of position . And really you would need at least three particles .

[devin553344]

To your last statement ; disagree

 

A lone particle can have a real velocity . It just can't be measured because it has no reference of comparison . In change of position . And really you would need at least three particles .

I look at velocity as a relative concept, that only a particle has a velocity if in relation to other objects and that velocity is a relativity concept.

 

I've described the relativity of the field of all particles at almost perfect c, such that the DeBroglie wavelength depicts a velocity of that field as a strain of the distance of the field, therefore its relative. Ie:

 

p=mc* rD/rC

 

Where p is the momentum of the particle, m is the mass, c is the speed of light, rD is the DeBroglie wavelength of the particle's momentum, rC is the Compton wavelength of the particle.

[current]

I look at velocity as a relative concept, that only a particle has a velocity if in relation to other objects and that velocity is a relativity concept.

 

I've described the relativity of the field of all particles at almost perfect c, such that the DeBroglie wavelength depicts a velocity of that field as a strain of the distance of the field, therefore its relative. Ie:

 

p=mc* rD/rC

 

Where p is the momentum of the particle, m is the mass, c is the speed of light, rD is the DeBroglie wavelength of the particle's momentum, rC is the Compton wavelength of the particle.

I look at velocity as a relative concept, that only a particle has a velocity if in relation to other objects and that velocity is a relativity concept.

 

I don't look at velocity the same you . Velocity is movement . Velocity is about what Physical Objects do . And the speed it reaches . Because of the Nature of the Objects and the Environment these objects are in .

 

Relative only matters ( no pun intended ) to observer(s). Not to the object .

Edited August 31, 2020 by current

[devin553344]

I don't look at velocity the same you . Velocity is movement . Velocity is about what Physical Objects do . And the speed it reaches . Because of the Nature of the Objects and the Environment these objects are in .

 

Relative only matters ( no pun intended ) to observer(s). Not to the object .

I should say I look at velocity of an object similar to a gravity field, but instead of being balanced in all directions it's asymmetric and therefore has a linear velocity. Momentum being 1 dimensional and gravity three. Therefore together they're 4 dimensional. Like it's similar to 5 dimensional electromagnetic concepts. Magnetic energy being the equivalent of momentum.

[current]

I should say I look at velocity of an object similar to a gravity field, but instead of being balanced in all directions it's asymmetric and therefore has a linear velocity. Momentum being 1 dimensional and gravity three. Therefore together they're 4 dimensional. Like it's similar to 5 dimensional electromagnetic concepts. Magnetic energy being the equivalent of momentum.

To your first statement ; Why ?

 

What is similar about velocity of an object to a gravity field ?

[devin553344]

To your first statement ; Why ?

 

What is similar about velocity of an object to a gravity field ?

Gravity fields have a velocity to them: 2Gm/r = v^2, But it's symmetric so objects accelerate in a straight line towards the gravitational object. But if it was a 1 dimensional vectored field it might self propel thru space relative to other objects.

[current]

 

 

Momentum being 1 dimensional and gravity three. Therefore together they're 4 dimensional. Like it's similar to 5 dimensional electromagnetic concepts. Magnetic energy being the equivalent of momentum.

 

Momentum is three dimensional it can not exist in a single dimension .

 

Why is gravity three dimensions ?

 

At Absolute Zero Magnetic Energy is momentum .

[current]

Gravity fields have a velocity to them: 2Gm/r = v^2, But it's symmetric so objects accelerate in a straight line towards the gravitational object. But if it was a 1 dimensional vectored field it might self propel thru space relative to other objects.

Yet gravity waves move away from the source .

[devin553344]

Yet gravity waves move away from the source .

Yes but they come from changes in mass as a field radiated outward, similar to normal radiation.