Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[arkain101]

I do not have much experience with the mathamatics that Kick has laid out. However with a little imagination I think I understand his concept.

 

I will try to write out a clear definition and pm it to kick-clown and see if it is accurate or not then we can put it up here.

[Erasmus00]

I am just showing the Definition of energy, as energy is a multidimensional (mass distance squared per second squared) but can simply be expressed in terms of E or J or Whatever unit you decide, but as with all definitions the number always reduces to 1. This is a basic priniciple of Quantization.

 

This doesn't make any sense. If you DEFINE something to be 1, it is no longer a variables. No standard deffinition of any VARIABLE (such as energy) "reduces" it to 1. This destroys its freedom, it is now 1, once and for all, by deffinition.

 

With a proper choice of units, you can set CONSTANTS to 1 (h, c, etc.) But not variables.

-Will

[IDMclean]

ok then. Erasmus, he who knows so much. Explain to me if you will, what is the variablity of the unit of the meter? Such that the Meter is DEFINED as equal to a unit of length.

 

Meter = Length = Meter. SI units.

Energy = Photon = Energy.

 

You have Standard Dependent defintions. Then you have Standard Independent definitions. That 1 E is without standard, it doesn't mean one joule (I don't think so anyway), it simply means 1 (generic) unit of energy. Such that all forms of energy above this 1 unit, all non-groundstate states, are expressed in definite units, discreet packets of, energy.

 

However if I am wrong, then do correct me. It should be noted that the Definition is different than the equation. I substituted mass for energy. Such that it becomes [math]c^2/c^2[/math], defined by constants it is a constant. perhaps I should have indicated it more like this:

[math]E_0 = c^2/c^2[/math]

[math]E_0 = \frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

Zero state of the Photon, or the lowest energy state of energy, the ground State.

[EWright]

ok then. Erasmus, he who knows so much. Explain to me if you will, what is the variablity of the unit of the meter? Such that the Meter is DEFINED as equal to a unit of length.

 

Meter = Length = Meter. SI units.

Energy = Photon = Energy.

 

You have Standard Dependent defintions. Then you have Standard Independent definitions. That 1 E is without standard, it doesn't mean one joule (I don't think so anyway), it simply means 1 (generic) unit of energy. Such that all forms of energy above this 1 unit, all non-groundstate states, are expressed in definite units, discreet packets of, energy.

 

However if I am wrong, then do correct me. It should be noted that the Definition is different than the equation. I substituted mass for energy. Such that it becomes [math]c^2/c^2[/math], defined by constants it is a constant. perhaps I should have indicated it more like this:

[math]E_0 = c^2/c^2[/math]

[math]E_0 = \frac{\epsilon_0\mu_0}{\epsilon_0\mu_0}[/math]

 

Zero state of the Photon, or the lowest energy state of energy, the ground State.

 

I can related to part of this at least... let's pose the simpler question that came to mind as I feel it relates to your point.

 

Taking Will's argument that one is not variable... and assigning it to one meter as you suggest, and then accelerating that length to a significant fraction of c, that one meter must then become variable in length relative to a stationary observer and his meter. Is this not correct?

[Tim_Lou]

i think what KAC means is that Energy is quantized and

E=n*const

and he let the const be 1 in a specifically chosen dimension.

 

if not then really, none of it makes sense. energy cannot be a constant, otherwise all mass will be constant and....Electrons, protrons, or a system including an electron and protron will have the same mass-energy! which is a contradictory statement itself.

[arkain101]

I wonder clown if you would like to review this particular summery of that new quantum aether theory.

 

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Paper:A_New_Foundation_for_Physics%2C_by_Quantum_Aether_Dynamics_Institute

[IDMclean]

Tim, yes indeed. I was only defining one state, that of the lowest. It is to say that the lowest ammount of energy that can be found in a (dipole) charged space is 1.

 

I merely took the [math]E = mc^2[/math] equation and subsituted m for [math]c^{-2}[/math]. Thereby arriving at the lowest energy state of energy. Which should be an acceptable result as Mass and energy are supposed to be equivliant, according to Mass-Energy equivlancy (GR: Chapter 15).

[sebbysteiny]

I ask you these questions, like I would love to ask any Physist. What would happen should these two be seperated? What would a monopole be like, what properties would it exhibit? How would you know what monopole looks like, seeing as you've never seen one before?

 

Your questions are not as difficult as you make them out to be.

 

Okay, Gauss's law essentially says that the amount of electric flux (ie the number of Electric field lines) leaving a volume is equal to the charge contained within it divided by epsilon 0. The flux can be viewed as the number of Electric field lines. As your physics lessons has probably told you, to draw an area of strong electric field and an area of a weak electric field, you simply draw lots of lines in areas of strong field and not as many lines in areas of weak field.

 

However, those lines represent a physical quantity called the Electric flux. Similarly, lines drawn between magnetic North poles and Magnetic South poles represent magnetic flux.

 

So back to Gauss's law, the amount of flux leaving a volume is proportional to the charge contained within it. However, the amount of flux leaving a volume for a magnetic field is zero because that volume will contain both a North and a South pole.

 

If, however, a free magnetic monopole exists, then the flux leaving a volume will be proportionate to the magnatic pole strength contained within. In this sense it will simply look identical to a free electric charge but with the magnetic field lines (flux) replacing electric field lines.

 

We know this because this is how it would behave according to all the theories of electromagetism.

 

As for the idea that magnetism and electricty being separated, this has become proven as an impossibility since special relitivity and I'll show you the basics of why.

 

Image you have particles of charge being fired in a straight line at about 0.9c (ie 0.9 times the speed of light). In the frame of the observer, one measures a flow of charge, ie a current. This current, according to Ampere's law, would cause a magnetic field that forms a circle around to stream of moving charges.

 

However, if a second observer is travelling at 0.9c so that he is stationary to the charges, he would measure simply a stationary charge and therefore the force he measures is entirely electric.

 

Understanding how magnetic and electric effects become one and the same in a wire of charged particles is more complicated.

 

Hope these answers makes you a happier clown.

[IDMclean]

They do infact. they conferm a suspicion that I was having that Magnetic and Electric may not infact be what I am talking about as I originally thought.

 

What you describe is what I recently have been coming to understand through my own equations and Interpatations, though I was uncertain of the validity.

 

You describe Magnetic and Electric the way I figured them to be, as a suspicion. Such that Magnetic would be imbalance and Electric would be Balance. See what I originally theorized as being Magnetic and Electric couldn't be. Magnetic and Electric are same beasts from different perceptual views. What I then am ascribing to be Electric Quanta would simply be Anti-Magnetic Quanta.

 

Which makes far more sense than Magnetic my original supisition. Which further confirms my suspicion regarding my original Force Diagram.

 

Electric = Magnetic_north/Magnetic_south

q = q_t/q_f

 

Or something similar. However the relationship is such that Electric charge is dependent on Magnetic charge.

 

So in my original Diagram:

E is then a Combonation of +B and -B. Such that when you have 1 Electric Charge interacting with 1 Magnetic Charge you get a Strong Force.

 

When you simply have 1 magnetic charge interacting with it's anti-polar then you get a Weak force. Which confirms my Photonic Definition, more or less. I still think it needs some work to be 100% correct but in basic it is correct.

 

[math]\gamma_q \equiv q_t/q_f \equiv 1q[/math]

[sebbysteiny]

I have no idea how you formed that conclusion, but I'm glad to have answered your questions on real science. I have no idea what you are talking about, but perhaps I should say that the force carrier for the electromagnetic force is simply the photon, which is its own anti-particle.

 

Now all you need to do is put your master equation that solves all of modern science into vector calculus form. :confused:

[Qfwfq]

Uhm,

If, however, a free magnetic monopole exists, then the flux leaving a volume will be proportionate to the magnatic pole strength contained within. In this sense it will simply look identical to a free electric charge but with the magnetic field lines (flux) replacing electric field lines.

Are you perhaps neglecting the fact that it would be a... pseudoscalar? :naughty:

[IDMclean]

Neutrino Oddities:

NuTeV Weak Mixing Angle Results

Generation of Photons and Electron-Positron Pairs by a Neutrino in a Strong Magnetic Field.

[Erasmus00]

Keeping in mind that Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos have zero Electric Charge, When the combine, theoretically they should produce a Photon, or two.Taking that and the Electron-Positron Pair Production, of two Photons of sufficent energy, we arrive at something of a paradox.

 

Clearly their is an issue here. Where oh where did the charge come from? I smell a violation of Conservation of Charge, here.

 

Umm... neutrino: charge neutral. Photon: charge neutral. Electron-positron pair: charge neutral (one is +,one is -). No reaction with only these elements can violate conservation of charge. All of these are neutral!

-Will

[IDMclean]

Good point, I think.

 

I still note that it seems odd to me.

[IDMclean]

I was thinking about Pauli Exclusion and orbits, and it occured to me why two bodies with opposite Charility can't occupy the same space-time.

 

It's Deconstructive Interference. A body can not occupy a point in Space-time, where a body moving relative to it will next occupy that same Space-time in the next frame.

 

If we think of our Bodies as Helixs with opposed twist. then they obviously can't overlap. otherwise, they will cross at points, and collide.

 

If we return to my c body fundamental charge, remembering that when they are moving relative to one another (in a bound orbit to one another) they will appear to be a double helix, with a twist. They will take turns occupying the "inside" of the helix and the "outside". Like a Braided Double Helix.

 

Like this for instance:

Braided Double Helix Nebulae (Note that it is Magnetic Field that is theorized to be responsible for this phenomena)

or like this (has a demostration of a bound charge system, it's the bright coloured thing):

Slipknot

 

from the Y, Z perspective.

[IDMclean]

This is old but it is part of what brought me to where I am at, so I will post it for posterities sake for now.

 

 

This is a partial picture of what we think of as Matter and Space-Time. I haven't worked on this one for a while now, so I wll be getting back to it shortly. Hope it's as nifty to you as it is to me.

[Erasmus00]

You know how funny that sounds? The photon is defined in terms of Electomagnetics. Energy is defined in terms of the Photon.

 

You are the only person who defines all energy in terms of the photon! Photons are quantizations of energy in the maxwell fields. Electrons are fundamentally distinct from photons (they are quantizations in a different field, the dirac field!) and still carry energy. There are lots of ways to carry energy.

 

Gravity, according to what you go by, is either A) A force (mr/t^2) and related to potential energy, or :) A geodesic effect on energy propagating through space-time

 

Gravitational energy contribues to spacetime curvature the same as electromagnetic energy. This is a source of the non-linearirty in the field equations: energy curves space, as space curve, energy goes up and curves more space. This is obviously very qualitative in description.

 

Strong is like wise a force.

 

And we can define an energy for any conservative force.

-Will