Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2016 13:08:04
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2016 14:37:36
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2016 14:59:15
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2016 18:18:32
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D57438.0%3Battach%3D19697%3Bimage&hash=e3247f70c5eb1b63263216580591f3ff)
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2016 18:21:08
Post by: McQueen on 17/04/2016 20:02:04
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2016 22:07:46
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2016 09:13:13
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy can then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.
I don't think you need the extra after ''Be''
Pe = Be
Be=Pe
But I like your idea Jeff it seem's to have meaning.
What are you stating is the binding energy?
I have neg.
Pe=Be=+=-?
Physics seem's quite easy if we consider neg is attracted to neg, not maybe the sort of neg we are accustomed too, but a gravitational neg. Because things that expand contract when they return to more neg .
[ Invalid Attachment ]
added -
[ Invalid Attachment ]
L0=+q=-q=T0
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/04/2016 19:41:55
Ne = Be + 2Dk + Uk + 2Dh +Uh
For stable matter the only particle not accounted for is the electron. In the case of the weak force we also need to account for the W+, W- and Z bosons and how they acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism.
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/04/2016 19:45:47
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy vcan then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.
I don't think you need the extra after ''Be''
Pe = Be
Be=Pe
Well then you don't understand the basis for the hypothesis.
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/04/2016 20:59:38
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2016 21:08:38
Well then you don't understand the basis for the hypothesis.
Potential energy and binding energy I understand, that is the basis for your theory once you put Pe=Be.
This bit why ? + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh + gamma(x). Where x is as yet undetermined
Do we observe this up and down movement?
And kE is not a real thing so that sort of kills that.
added-
Be+Pe = >4/3 pi r³
Be-Pe=<4/3 pi r³
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/04/2016 15:24:32
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/04/2016 18:12:55
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 14:26:14
If an interaction between the graviton and the Higgs field were to be considered a mechanism for the action of gravity then the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass becomes a function of displacement from the origin of the field.
I am leaving the above statement about mass equivalence in. However this is wrong since the source does not change, simply the field distribution away from the source.
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2016 14:31:28
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 14:40:56
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 14:53:01
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation) (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation))
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 15:18:18
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 22:19:32
https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i (https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i)
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 18:10:46
Here k = kinetic energy and h = Higgs energy.
If during an infinitesimally short time interval the graviton reduced the inertial mass obtained via the Higgs field a consequence of this disturbance could be a displacement of the mass in the direction of the gravitational source.
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 20:20:17
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 20:49:37
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 21:09:32
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 21:47:35
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 22:02:45
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 22:11:15
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2016 18:36:16
The proton and neutron energy equations can be stated thus.
Here k = kinetic energy and h = Higgs energy.
If during an infinitesimally short time interval the graviton reduced the inertial mass obtained via the Higgs field a consequence of this disturbance could be a displacement of the mass in the direction of the gravitational source.
Kmax=S where S is entropy?
Kmax=
?E0=Qneg?
E1=Qpos?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/04/2016 19:21:46
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2016 19:27:25
There is a maximum kinetic energy that can't physically be reached. That is 1/2mc^2. Since this could also equate to the entropy at the surface of a black hole the yes you may be partly right. How you got there baffles me.
I just try to say what I ''see'', whether it be describing something in words or trying to define it in a formula.
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/04/2016 21:30:37
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2016 05:58:51
I tell you what Thebox why don't you find out about entropy and I mean properly and come back and explain it to me.
Well my interpretation of Entropy may be a little different than you are use too, entropy is represented by the symbol S, it is a measurement of a disorder, however I see it like this,
A glass that is full of water is full, if a constant drip fell into the glass the entropy would overflow out of the glass, this would have a set rate rather than disorder.
Equal loss to equal gain,
of course when I imagine the water I am imagining energy.
Antoine understood entropy, he just needed to know that there is equal gain to equal loss, if the gain was a greater rate than the natural gain then the entropy would change.
added - so if the drip is a variate in rate, disorder can only follow.
added- sorry Jef I have just had a thought,
take two galaxies A and B and each system is gaining positive charge entropy.
>(q+)SA=+Ve
>(q+)SB=+Ve
relative to each other both systems repel each other at an accelerated rate, the ''faster'' a system gains + entropy, the ''faster'' the acceleration apart. The moon is gaining + entropy so the earth's + entropy is pushing it away,
added - the further the moon moves away , the more it will accelerate as the earths entropy loses affect on the moon and the moon increases its K.
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/04/2016 18:22:29
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2016 21:35:29
Well I would rather say that since gravity attracts and under extreme conditions draws in energy and gobbles up entropy then dark energy should distribute entropy over an expanding spacetime. This is a balance which preserves the thermodynamic integrity of the universe as a whole. However, entropy will still tend to increase for both situations. So what you say is in the right general direction but that is only my opinion.
I am still learning, I am not sure I have learnt anything but then sometimes I think I know everything. I like science has a hobby it is free to learn, maybe one day I might get better at trying to explain.
I try to imagine a void then in this void I place two pieces of dust a length apart, then I consider the only acting force on the dust is of the other dust and vice versus. I imagine dust particle A is drawn towards particle B and vice versus, but then I imagine as the dust particles draw closer they are cushioned by an imaginary field from each dust particle, I then imagine these fields prevent the dust particles from ever making direct contact , I also imagine that when these particles ''meet'' they are sent into a spin but now adjoined,
I then imagine entropy can only exist of solidity matter, it is only this matter that has ''storage'' room for hf, otherwise hf remains a ''solo'' whole.
→
...^∞ (maybe a bit gibberish)hf exists in space, hf's exist of atoms.
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/04/2016 15:05:31
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/04/2016 15:33:25
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2016 21:37:44
I have to point out a major issue with this hypothesis that still needs to be resolved. Depending upon what the cause, gravity or energy input, an accelerating object will experience opposite magnitudes of time dilation for each respectively. This leaves the hypothesis either invalid or incomplete. A resolution will have to be found with respect to the Higgs field interactions if the hypothesis has merit.
In respect to a body at rest in an inertia reference frame it is transferring energy from itself to the ground at a rate , when the object is displaced the rate changes and the body in motion will slow down it's emittance rate. The rate of the caesium atom is the rate of output , the rate changes because the output lessons as the body is moved . (maybe).
The caesium rate is not related to time other than an arbitrary use.
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/04/2016 21:47:15
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2016 08:43:22
That is a very interesting viewpoint and does relate to time dilation.
Thanks Jeff, I observe that an object at rest has a synchronised rate of transference from itself to the ground , move it and the synchronisation is more than obviously going to be different, A timing dilation is slightly different to a time dilation and the correct terminology for time dilation. We use the caesium for synchronised timing yet the caesium is not synchronised when it is in motion to our arbitrary rate of timing.