# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation  (Read 8718 times)

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« on: 12/04/2009 15:11:00 »
..............I resented this theory anyway. Thanks.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2009 06:19:45 by Mr. Scientist »

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #1 on: 13/04/2009 14:16:49 »
I'm not sure how vernon did his ''message'' to my link and posted it here in this forum to another link, but until i find that out, this derivation that links the Planck Time easily with the Planck Charge in pure latex (easier on the eyes kind of thingy) :), so here is the link to the derivation:

From this, i have wondered whether anyone here has figured i've been slowly progressing to an idea that the gravitational planck charge is not continuous, but rather fleeting flashes of gravitational charge, as the Planck Charge at a quantized level (must in my own logic) equal or be defined by the existence in a single chronon, also known as the Planck Time.

One this derivation has had more consideration for any possible mathematical errors, (if it has any), then i will then decide to produce these charges to be the very essence of what causes a photon as a fluctuation or knot in spacetime to produce some kind of inertial flux. It's like having a photon trying to move through too much ''thickness'' in spacetime.

As a thought experiment, we could have two universes in mind. If one universe exhibits the lightspeed as ''c'' as we normally recognize it, and the other universe with a density in the vacuum slightly higher, then wouldn't the photon energy in contrast rather be a ''more restfull'' object than the one which detects the normal value of c?

It seems that if there is some kind of added energy (given recently in my derivation of a lower photon-energy expectancy value)then it could make the fluctuation of the electromagnetic field flutter so-to-say within the field, and experience for the first time, time itself, and moving through a real space as well! The gravitational charge then exists for only planck time, whilst the gravitational bodies of large objects that we observe, have constituents which all lead to the same constant of mass.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #2 on: 13/04/2009 14:27:18 »
It is an interesting idea. Sometimes I think we have become too quantum concious so that we try to describe everything in terms of quanta. This leads us to Planck time, Planck length, a graviton, etc. But I think the only experimental evidence for the quantum nature of the universe relates to the photon. We know that it is quantized.

Now, what could cause the photon to only exist in packets the size of a quantum? Maybe it is simply that electromagnetic waves propagate as saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. I explored this notion in a little more depth in a paper Howcome The Quantum

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #3 on: 13/04/2009 14:50:16 »
It is an interesting idea. Sometimes I think we have become too quantum concious so that we try to describe everything in terms of quanta. This leads us to Planck time, Planck length, a graviton, etc. But I think the only experimental evidence for the quantum nature of the universe relates to the photon. We know that it is quantized.

Now, what could cause the photon to only exist in packets the size of a quantum? Maybe it is simply that electromagnetic waves propagate as saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. I explored this notion in a little more depth in a paper Howcome The Quantum

Certainly, but since we both agree that E^2 is the expectancy value |(we have summerized a few times), then the very reason it should be quantized is to make sure (on a cosmological sense) that the universe obides by the principle of least energy, rather than the principlized law of most energy.

In fact, the mathematical framework of the expectency value would certainly assure that that the universe cares not of wasting energy, but using it in the most ''ground stated'' condition possible. This would be experimentally-considerable, since two gamma photons arise matter in the most effeicient and constructive way. I am however, going to read this paper you linked, that is, until i have solved your shell problem, if i can. If i can't within a couple of days, i will go over the amplitude conditions you have spoke of. It seems very interesting, whilst yet, i feel the amplitude is so close to the frequency, that both are almost indestinguishable.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #4 on: 13/04/2009 16:20:20 »
If we allow a quantum of energy to consist of a single wavelength, then it must possess a saturation constant. We use E = hv to describe a quantum of energy-time. Electric and magnetic amplitude are not part of the equation, therefore electric and magnetic amplitude must be constant. Otherwise, h would be a variable.

Dr. Robert Kemp proposes a saturation constant and manipulates Maxwell's equations to derive it. Then he proposes the addition of this constant to Maxwell's equations so that they then predict quantum phenomena.
« Last Edit: 13/04/2009 16:25:02 by Vern »

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #5 on: 14/04/2009 19:05:56 »
If we allow a quantum of energy to consist of a single wavelength, then it must possess a saturation constant. We use E = hv to describe a quantum of energy-time. Electric and magnetic amplitude are not part of the equation, therefore electric and magnetic amplitude must be constant. Otherwise, h would be a variable.

Dr. Robert Kemp proposes a saturation constant and manipulates Maxwell's equations to derive it. Then he proposes the addition of this constant to Maxwell's equations so that they then predict quantum phenomena.

By what means is ''saturation'' friend? Is this decoherence?

I just read the link to Robert Kemps assumptions and derivations. Quite interesting, will help me viualize your own contentions on this subject with more clarity.
« Last Edit: 14/04/2009 19:12:20 by Mr. Scientist »

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #6 on: 14/04/2009 19:21:34 »
I'm not sure how vernon did his ''message'' to my link and posted it here in this forum to another link, but until i find that out, this derivation that links the Planck Time easily with the Planck Charge in pure latex (easier on the eyes kind of thingy) :), so here is the link to the derivation:

From this, i have wondered whether anyone here has figured i've been slowly progressing to an idea that the gravitational planck charge is not continuous, but rather fleeting flashes of gravitational charge, as the Planck Charge at a quantized level (must in my own logic) equal or be defined by the existence in a single chronon, also known as the Planck Time.

One this derivation has had more consideration for any possible mathematical errors, (if it has any), then i will then decide to produce these charges to be the very essence of what causes a photon as a fluctuation or knot in spacetime to produce some kind of inertial flux. It's like having a photon trying to move through too much ''thickness'' in spacetime.

As a thought experiment, we could have two universes in mind. If one universe exhibits the lightspeed as ''c'' as we normally recognize it, and the other universe with a density in the vacuum slightly higher, then wouldn't the photon energy in contrast rather be a ''more restfull'' object than the one which detects the normal value of c?

It seems that if there is some kind of added energy (given recently in my derivation of a lower photon-energy expectancy value)then it could make the fluctuation of the electromagnetic field flutter so-to-say within the field, and experience for the first time, time itself, and moving through a real space as well! The gravitational charge then exists for only planck time, whilst the gravitational bodies of large objects that we observe, have constituents which all lead to the same constant of mass.

My theory has somewhat evolved after reading about the saturation constant. This is by definition, what Dr Kemp states:

The electromagnetic saturation constant is the amount of energy available in a given period of time per quantum of electromotive force in a given wavelength.

If this is true, then it is most acceptable to believe my plankian derivations that closely relate the nature of the Planck Time and Charge, would mean that their properties to ''flux'' photon energy into matter must also be proportional to the amount of time in the Saturation Constant. This would mean that not only does all ''gravitationally-charged'' matter has a matter in short fleeting flashes of stops and starts at a Planck Time, but the Charge and Saturation of the energy must equivalently equal to the Planck Time .

In a sense, you could imagine photons being trapped - whether that be in shells like in your theory, or even the simplest form of having enough energy to satisfy the weak-energy condition and expectancy value i gave as - then these photons are ''literally'' dragging through spacetime exhibiting fermion-like qualities with a rest mass appearance due to their momentum in spacetime ''fluttering'' in a field which not only generates their mass, but is somehow the same as the gravitational charge which is present in their momenta.

Suffice to say, i have not yet any mathematical derivations helping the Nuetrino Problem.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #7 on: 14/04/2009 19:59:40 »
Yes; I agree with you. In fact I think we have pretty much established among the group here that any time energy is considered in a local spacial area, it is mass. I think in one analogy we used two photons trapped in a mirrored box. The photons and box system are more massive than the box alone. Remove the box and consider the photons. They are still massive until they leave the local area.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #8 on: 14/04/2009 20:02:11 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
The electromagnetic saturation constant is the amount of energy available in a given period of time per quantum of electromotive force in a given wavelength.

If this is true, then it is most acceptable to believe my plankian derivations that closely relate the nature of the Planck Time and Charge, would mean that their properties to ''flux'' photon energy into matter must also be proportional to the amount of time in the Saturation Constant. This would mean that not only does all ''gravitationally-charged'' matter has a matter in short fleeting flashes of stops and starts at a Planck Time, but the Charge and Saturation of the energy must equivalently equal to the Planck Time .
Yes; I can see the possibility.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #9 on: 15/04/2009 09:57:07 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
The electromagnetic saturation constant is the amount of energy available in a given period of time per quantum of electromotive force in a given wavelength.

If this is true, then it is most acceptable to believe my plankian derivations that closely relate the nature of the Planck Time and Charge, would mean that their properties to ''flux'' photon energy into matter must also be proportional to the amount of time in the Saturation Constant. This would mean that not only does all ''gravitationally-charged'' matter has a matter in short fleeting flashes of stops and starts at a Planck Time, but the Charge and Saturation of the energy must equivalently equal to the Planck Time .
Yes; I can see the possibility.

forget about the math i linked to. yesterday looking through it, i realized a large chunk of it was wrong because of one mistake:(

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #10 on: 15/04/2009 14:41:32 »
Done; I'm a little slow in the standard notation of maths. All of my experience with arithmetic is in computer programming, mostly C++. I like to understand things by graphical visualization, I guess because of my graphics programming experience.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #11 on: 16/04/2009 23:00:49 »
Suffive to say vern, the expectancy value of energy, the a_g constant of gravitational charge all still hold. It's just when i try to define G a small section of the charge relationships fail due to a stupid error i made.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #12 on: 16/04/2009 23:15:17 »
Done; I'm a little slow in the standard notation of maths. All of my experience with arithmetic is in computer programming, mostly C++. I like to understand things by graphical visualization, I guess because of my graphics programming experience.

Now, as i promised, i mould mull over your nuetrino value, and find you a solution if you able to contemplate a really major factor: And i mean like changing everything we know about nuetrino's into a form called ''excited'' axions.

I can mathematically-derive a major hypothesis stating that the nuetrino is actually an ''excited axion'' with the sqaured value of the expectency value of E^2=M^2c^4 allowing matter to flux into energy and back. Visa visa, the relationship of energy-mass equivalence.

The axion actually exists from our frame of reference as a type of dark matter which (has recently been discovered at least twice in different and independant experiments), as a particle which can move through matter and energy without a flaw in it's trajectory. Unlike the photon which has an influence of \theta, (the angle symbol), when it comes into contact with semi-clarent objects, just as much as an axion particle can move through solid titanium without any disruption.

What if the axion is very amountable in the universe as being aproximated to be around the same value of all the nuetrino's calculatable with their gravitational effects? This would mean that there is a chance, whether small or high, that the axion field permeates quite high with it's desnity in spacetime.

What i am boldly and very pseudocientifically-(almost?)-suggesting is that the Nuetrino might be an excited state of the axion particle which would be defined (under astrophysical terminology as Hot Particles of Baryonic Matter) whilst exhibiting when being in ''Cold States'' or ''low velocity states,'' exhibit their non-corporeal-attatchment to the normal gravitational fluctuations of the universe?

Since the Nuetrino is said to move through matter without very much ease, then why can it not simply be a particle we have discovered in the lab through observation rather than gravitational attraction, be then simply an axion, who's state is very excited? Afterall, the axion and the nuetrino both have one thing in common. They are completely nuetral to curvature that is not only non-local from their frame of reference, but they seem to have no gravitational charge which causes very much curvature around their structures.

Difference is see, if the Neutrino did not exist and the axion took its place, then the axion fits ''Photon/Luxen Theory'' perfectly.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #13 on: 17/04/2009 15:34:01 »
This might be difficult for the Luxon hypothesis, and also for the Photonic hypothesis. The major premise that we attempt to uphold is: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. The first observation that led to this premise was that the premise predicts all relativity phenomena in flat space-time.

Introducing another particle would violate the first postulate (major premise). Edit: Unless that particle can be reduced to electromagnetic phenomena.

I spent the first several years of my investigation into the photonic theory just trying to verify that this first observation was true. The first mention of that observation was in an Development of Our Conception of the
by Albert Einstein.

"If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter-like states and electrodynamics phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted."
« Last Edit: 17/04/2009 15:54:26 by Vern »

#### Stupid.noitsnotajokeiamno

• First timers
• Posts: 1
##### Re: A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #14 on: 03/10/2009 05:13:45 »
18 According to quantum theory, the shortest moment of time that can exist is known as Planck time, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second.

You are all dumb. Look. I'll become famous in the next sentence or maybe the one after that cause I haven't planned out my parahraph structure yet.
Old shortest moment of time in the univers: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.
NEW shortest moment of time (but, isn't a moment supposed to be approximately one minute? thats what one dictionary says, anyways. stupid. anyways)
NEW shortest moment of time in the universe: 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

OH. SNAP.
Call the Ghostbusters, cause Einstein is raging in Berlin (and he's all up in da heezy yo) cause i bitchslapped his big theory of stupidtivity.

What? You don't think that counts? Oh.

NEWER shortest moment of time in the universe: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.
Well, damn.

And what if aliens showed up and we were talking about science, which we totally would cause we would HAVE to compare ways of doing math and counting and senses and all that, and we told them about the Planck length, and they were all "lolwut? that's arbitrary"?
Then what would you say to that? Seriously. Picture yourself for some reason being part of the group of people doing the communicating with the alien's group of people doing their communicating, and that comes up, and they refute this idea. What would your justification be for saying that the shortest amount of time can only go up to 43 decimal places (hope I counted that right)?

TL;DR version: assigning inherently arbitrary values that we invented to natural forces is lolworthy

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #15 on: 03/10/2009 12:52:01 »
Quote from: Stupid.noitsnotajoke
And what if aliens showed up and we were talking about science, which we totally would cause we would HAVE to compare ways of doing math and counting and senses and all that, and we told them about the Planck length, and they were all "lolwut? that's arbitrary"?
Then what would you say to that? Seriously. Picture yourself for some reason being part of the group of people doing the communicating with the alien's group of people doing their communicating, and that comes up, and they refute this idea. What would your justification be for saying that the shortest amount of time can only go up to 43 decimal places (hope I counted that right)?

TL;DR version: assigning inherently arbitrary values that we invented to natural forces is lolworthy
I think the last sentence sums it all up. I can agree with that.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### A Derivation of the Planck Time and the Quantized Planck Charge Relation
« Reply #15 on: 03/10/2009 12:52:01 »