Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[IDMclean]

Third law: To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).

 

As this is a LAW we can expand it's scope, to be true of just about everything

 

So we can re write it as:

To every Event (body interaction) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal body interaction in the opposite direction).

This comes into agreement with both GR and QT.

 

We can describe everything as Equal bodies of Field, with Equal distance Influence. We can simultatiously describe everything as being opposite of everything but itself, and therefore relative. With each body being it's own rest frame.

 

Therefore we can conclude that the Fundemental particles, would move at c, and that they would be Equal in all respects, except direction and due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, opposite in absolute chilarity.

[IDMclean]

KickAssClown says:

http://www.jracademy.com/%7Enoussj/thesis.htm take a look at the first picture in that and this http://hypography.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=799&c=24, and take these two together.

 

you'll note in the time picture of the earth and the moon the z axis has been removed. Such that you only have x, y, t. ok, now imagine for a moment that the earth and the moon where orbiting each other at c

 

- > J <- ₪ņ∞≠↨ = Jay-qu says:

the coil would be tighter

 

KickAssClown says:

now imagine if you found the attraction axis (the center of "gravity") for the body, and looked out at the Earth and the moon orbiting one another at c. If you look from the perspective of one or the other then the apparent velocity would seem to be less that c. If you looked from the common point of the two bodies you would "see" each one moving at c

 

- > J <- ₪ņ∞≠↨ = Jay-qu says:

so

 

KickAssClown says:

I think anyway.

If you replace the Earth and the moon with two particles, you would have the photon. The two particles would be the neutrino and the anti-neutrino repectfully.

 

- > J <- ₪ņ∞≠↨ = Jay-qu says:

so one particle orbiting another? or are they the same mass?

 

KickAssClown says:

Mass at this scale have very little meaning. For now lets just say they are photon-like, and have zero rest mass.

 

Jay-qu says:

then what is the attraction that draws them into this movement?

 

KickAssClown says:

I redefine mass somewhat in my model, as it is an intrinsict result of the complex orbits of these two fundementals.

 

well, each on carries a property.

 

One carries attraction and the other carries repulsion, I think. I am still trying to figure out which is what. However it is noted that they are fermions, in classical sense, and have Absolute charility. They are equal but opposite, such that they attract together, but cannot occupy the same space, so they have to orbit.

 

Another interesting thing that arises from my model is then that Time is a function of the Geometry of Orbiting bodies.

[arkain101]

Kick,

 

It appears we are following the same tracks mostly here.

 

I redefine mass somewhat in my model, as it is an intrinsict result of the complex orbits of these two fundementals.

 

The two fundementals of space-time. Equal and perpendicular pair relationship, with time pushing through these two, in a 4th dimension sense.

 

So as a 'mass' accelerates you are stressing time or something of the type in a squaring fashion.

 

The combining of these two fundamental charges if you will, to develope light, equally and oppositely should affect this time flow in some way.

 

Just some insights of mine.

[IDMclean]

Well I've recently been playing with a chicken-egg senario. See [math]t = 2\pi r[/math]. But that is Relative, I think. If you have two bodies orbiting one another the equation holds for each.

 

so if we have two bodies orbiting about one another, if we go to the mid-point between them, and draw a circle making the radius of said circle the distance between the mean point and one of the orbiting bodies you get both bodies orbiting this point, in a helix pattern through "time" where time is the frequency of the orbiting bodies about the mean point.

 

x = cos (t)

y = sin (t)

z = t

[arkain101]

so if we have two bodies orbiting about one another, if we go to the mid-point between them, and draw a circle making the radius of said circle the distance between the mean point and one of the orbiting bodies you get both bodies orbiting this point, in a helix pattern through "time" where time is the frequency of the orbiting bodies about the mean point.

 

Got any drawings of this? Or could you elaborate?

[IDMclean]

Ok you saw the picture I posted of the moon helixing about the earth through "time", correct?

 

Well if you adjusted the perceptive from the Earth to the mean point of orbit you would find that from that frame of reference the Earth and the Moon are both helixing through "time" about that point.

 

I forget the name of the mean point but it's used to calculate the orbits of multi-body systems, like in binary star orbits and their planet's orbits about the mean point.

[Erasmus00]

If mass has charge.

 

Not always the case. See neutrinos for instance.

 

and mass is energy

 

Yes.

 

and charge is quantized

 

Of course it is, charge carriers are discreet.

 

and energy is quantized

 

Energy isn't always quantized, it comes from the boundary conditions. Free particles, for instance, don't have quantized energies but a continuous spectrum.

 

but quanta of energy is not quanta of charge

 

Of course not, they have different units, for one.

 

then energy must contain charge.

 

This doesn't seem to follow.

 

Therefore I concluded that mass was a flawed definition. Mass by definition defined itself according to Volume.

 

That isn't true. In classical theory, for instance, elementary particles must be considered as having a pointlike nature (no volume). This is because you can't have an infinitely rigid body in relativity unless it only occupies a point. By deffinition, an elementary particle must be perfectly rigid, so therefore, must be pointlike.

 

[math]E \equiv\frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

This doesn't have the proper units. Energy is not dimensionless.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Not always the case. See neutrinos for instance.

 

You ignore that in my model I replace the defintion of the Neutrino and it's interactions with classical mass/energy. In my model the Neutrino is defined as the Quanta of Left-handed Charge. The Anti-Neutrino being that of the Right-handed Sort.

 

[math]E \equiv \frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0} \equiv 1[/math]

 

I don't know about you but tell me this, in the Definition of Length what are it's Dimensions, other than itself? A definition differs quite a bit from a relationship.

 

That isn't true. In classical theory, for instance, elementary particles must be considered as having a pointlike nature (no volume). This is because you can't have an infinitely rigid body in relativity unless it only occupies a point. By deffinition, an elementary particle must be perfectly rigid, so therefore, must be pointlike.

 

Really, which ones? Do tell as I wasn't aware of this.

[IDMclean]

[math]v_x = \sqrt{rF_\Omega}[/math]

[math]v_x = \sqrt{r 299792458r/t^2}[/math]

[math]r = 1[/math]

[math]v_x \equiv c[/math]

 

 

[math]F_\Omega' = F_\Omega\frac{r_1}{r_c}[/math]

 

 

Would this be correct?

 

So far I am only dealling with systems that involve Equal and Opposite bodies. When I get this all worked out, then I will concider dealling with more complex Systems, such as Mearged Like Chilarity bodies, where the system becomes more eliptical and begins to deviate from balance.

 

The goal of this excersise is to show that the [math]F_\Omega[/math] will begin to seperate out into the other forces as you begin getting increasingly more compound/complex Orbitial body systems.

 

It should be noted that the Fundementals are true Ridgid Body Point Particles, which exert a Field of influence out, propagating with zero Lorentz Factor, as such will be relativitely observed to propagate at c.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm lazy will some one for once figure this junk out, so I don't have to?

I must say, that quote is more likely to motivate me to laugh at your equations than to prove or verify them. Perhaps another method of requesting assistance would be more successful? Just a thought...

 

 

Cheers. :eek:

[IDMclean]

I've tried a few other strategies. They haven't yeilded any significant assistance. I figured I would be honest and maybe that would help.

 

It's really really hard to try and calculate out the kinds of things I need to. Nasa doesn't deal with the number of orbits and the complexities of those orbits that I am going to have to inorder to show my thoerm's viability.

 

I'm all ears if you have a better strategy for asking for aid, as my strategies have done nothing.

[Erasmus00]

[math]v_x = \sqrt{rF_\Omega}[/math]

[math]v_x = \sqrt{r 299792458r/t^2}[/math]

[math]r = 1[/math]

[math]v_x \equiv c[/math]

 

 

Your formulas are broken. The right side of the top line doesn't have units of velocity. (there is a mass factor in force that hasn't dropped out, so you have a sqrt kg on the right that isn't on the left).

 

The goal of this excersise is to show that the [math]F_\Omega[/math] will begin to seperate out into the other forces as you begin getting increasingly more compound/complex Orbitial body systems.

 

That seems unlikely. To calculate v, you need to put your force in by hand. How is adding any more particles to an orbit going to change the force laws?

-Will

[Erasmus00]

It's really really hard to try and calculate out the kinds of things I need to. Nasa doesn't deal with the number of orbits and the complexities of those orbits that I am going to have to inorder to show my thoerm's viability.

 

First off, of course NASA does. Second, even the three body problem doesn't have an exact analytical solution. You are better off simplifying the problem (by removing interactions between two of the smaller bodies, for instance) then putting back in the interaction as a perturbation.

-Will

[EWright]

I've tried a few other strategies. They haven't yeilded any significant assistance. I figured I would be honest and maybe that would help.

 

It's really really hard to try and calculate out the kinds of things I need to. Nasa doesn't deal with the number of orbits and the complexities of those orbits that I am going to have to inorder to show my thoerm's viability.

 

I'm all ears if you have a better strategy for asking for aid, as my strategies have done nothing.

 

Well common sense would suggest some way besides claiming to be too lazy to figure them out for yourself. There's no harm in saying you're getting a bit lost in the calculations and asking for some direction; but the way you posed it is as if you don't care enough to put the effort into figuring out your own idea.

 

Personally, if you can explain it in plain and straight forward english, I'd love to see that. I don't speak the math necessary to understand the majority of your posts. I have a theory of my own that I've laid out in plain english, though I've not posted it quite yet. However, I have a hard time understanding just why it is the mathematical versions can't be expressed in a more verbal way.

 

You've touched on a couple of points that I'd like to hear more about if you care to endulge me with the written out form. As for those who understand the math, lay it out there and ask for feedback and direction. I've noticed Will being both helpful and challenging you at the same time. Take some advice and direction where you can get it. Also, offer clear reasons why you refute others' advice when you do, so it doesn't seem as though you're just dismissing it. Why offer further constructive criticism if it isn't being taken to heart.

[Erasmus00]

At some point I am going to start in on Frequency Analysis of the Neutron and Hydrogen Atom.

 

[math]E = hf[/math]

[math]E/h = f[/math]

[math]\Psi(x)= A sin(\frac{2\pi x}{\lambda}) = A sin(kx)[/math]

[math]\lambda = h/p[/math]

[math]E_1 = h^2/8mL[/math]

[math]L = n\frac{\lambda}{2}[/math]

 

Your formula for psi only holds in an infinite square well. It does not work for a hydrogen atom.

 

[math]-1.91304\mu_N[/math] Magnetic Dipole Moment (I am not clear on this, is this the same as Permeability?)

 

Not at all. The magnetic dipole moment is related to the strength of the magnetic (dipole) field given off by the particle.

-Will

[EWright]

KAK,

 

One other suggestion... it seems as though you're taking on a lot of different aspects of a lot of different things in your theory, but without a complete handle on any one of them. I know you also said you face certain challenges with your short-term memory. Perhaps you shoud work on solving one specific aspect of your theory at at time (that is, unless they all tie together in such a way that you must address them together).

[IDMclean]

OK in the Uber Force equation I eliminate the m from it, because like with the photon, it is eliminated in the definition. It's there, but it's invisible because of cancellation. 1 kg/1kg is = 1 kg. Suffice it to say that at this scale, mass has very little meaning (expecially being dependent on dual field systems, IE Electromagnetic Matter).

 

Mass in my theorm is a property of matched, but unbalanced fundemental charge. If it wasn't noticed earlier, [math]m = q r^2/t^2[/math]. In the c equation [math]q/q = 1[/math]. In my mass definition: [math]q = q_t/q_f[/math], where [math]q_t \not= q_f[/math]. [math]q_t[/math] and [math]q_f[/math] are non zero, non negative, whole natural numbers.

 

Mass has no meaning on the scale I purpose. Mass is good and all for things that are classical in nature, however is ill suited for creatures like the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino. Which are massless in my model, but not to any insturment we have. The reason for this is simple. All our instruments for measuring are made up of Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, locked in a sort of systems of orbit. So in attempts to measure the Neutrinos, we have given them mass, because the oversight of the fact (as I accept it) that our measuring device gives it mass.

 

The reality is that Monopoles have no "mass", only (non-classical) charge.