The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why abandon cause and effect?  (Read 19596 times)

Ethos

  • Guest
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #50 on: 13/11/2009 02:39:56 »
Verns answer, seems to apply directly to your question.
Quite right.............he seems to have beaten me to the punch in his last post.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #51 on: 13/11/2009 02:45:34 »
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all.  A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.

No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #52 on: 13/11/2009 02:58:04 »
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all.  A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.

No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2009 03:01:58 by Ethos »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #53 on: 13/11/2009 03:06:48 »
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all.  A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.

No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.
I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.

This is almost certainly what the main equation i made in the work implies.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #54 on: 13/11/2009 03:12:00 »
I suspect that there is a difference between a neutral charge and no charge at all.  A local area would experience a quick succession of electric and magnetic change when a photon passed through. It would experience a half cycle of charge in one direction immediately followed by a half cycle of the opposite.

No charge at all would not experience the brief ripple of cancelling charges. But the charges can cancel to neutral only if the path of the photon is a straight path. Any bending of the path must leave a residual charge.

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i∫d^4 x([ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]+[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ]) (A)


take a look at the exponential function of (A) in the equation. It has the electromagnetic and gravitational permittivity. These where invited to make sense of the need of your theories use of some charge being present.

If we replace both the permittivity of the electromagnetic constant ε_g with the supercomplex coefficient ξ removed since it causes a positive value, (and we want these to be nuetral) with a nuetral charge component, we could for arguements sake, mathematically-express it as: μ_{g,0} for a gravitational charge (1) and one for its electromagnetic form of μ_{e,0}.

These expressions are not too difficult to understand. You can think of the subscript contained with the squibbly brackets as components of both charge and a value of zero, which is a nuetral vector component. μ1,μ2_{g,e,0} so this expression yields both states in nuetral-charge states. So replacing the supercomplex number coupled with the permitivvity constants as ξ1,ξ1_{ε_g,ε_0}, then we have modelled the vibrational patterns to suit your theory hopefully.

So, replacing the functions of ξ1,ξ1_{ε_g,ε_0} with μ1,μ2_{g,e,0}, we would arrive at an equation which i hope you will agree too... if not, as they say, if you first don't succeed, try and try again. :)

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i∫d^4 x([μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]+[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ])

(1) - remember, the gravitational charge must also by symmetry to have a neutral charge if indeed such a charge is distinguishable from no charge at all, this is a new reason why its essential to add it.


 

Ethos

  • Guest
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #55 on: 13/11/2009 03:51:20 »
If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave.

For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious.

How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave?

We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle. From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into  'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass.

How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?

 

 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #56 on: 13/11/2009 04:22:22 »
If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave.

For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious. (1)

How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave? (2)

We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle. (3)

From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into  'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass. (4)

How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?



(1)  I'll take that as a compliment.

Thanks.

(2) - An elctromagnetic wave, is really a photon in a quantum wave function.It spreads out over space in many possible locations, but only in a virtual sense. If that's what you meant?

(3) - Only theoretically. This is verns hypothesis, and i'm just attempting to make a mahematical model to help describe it. It's by no means universally-accepted though :)

..
.... unfortunately :(

(4) - Absolutely. There From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into  'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the
organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass

Certainly, there is a local phenomena going on. The instrinsic change (or flux) from energy to matter seems to be an instrinsic internal change, but that
doesn't exclude the presence of a gravitational force field that can act as a mechanism for such a flux. It's always been a pet theory of mine to
not accept Higgs Mechanism, but resort to an easier approach using the gravitational field but vern made me realize that in many ways that mechanism was too
magically-inhanced by imaginary terms of course, just because the gravitational fields mechanism was a certain degree of energy did not suggest a reason to
why such a flux would usually happen. I decided it required verns hypothesis that curvature for photons implied a presence of a charge, both of graviational form
and of EM-form... but what i do not agree with is that the charge is constant - meaning constant in the sense it is present all the time, whether it changes
in quantity over time or not. I prefer the contention that charge only appears when there is an acting strong gravitational field associated to the photons
movement in a curved distorted spacetime warp; then as soon as it breaks free, that is if it breaks free, the charge will dissipate, meaning that gravitons
so not couple to the instrinsic properties of a photon when not in a curved geodesic.

This means that the two main equation i have presented:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i∫d^4 x([ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]+[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]) ;a

and

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i∫d^4 x([μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]+[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]) ;b

Are two equations with two different charge solutions. Vern's hypothetical neutral decription of photon charge in a respective gravitational field and its associated
charge, and one which solves for the charge-related to the permittivity which is non-nuetral, in fact, its positive.. to attain the negative, just simply remove the
supercomplex coefficient; it's irrational as an equation however, that is equation (a;) to be non-positively attracted, since it would eliminate the connectivity of
both the electromagnetic and gravitational field interactions. Instead of terms:([ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]) and ([ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]) being
added they would instead be subtracted, eliminating the Langrangian relation and also the vibrational pattern in |(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>| where F_g vt is not a gravitational
energy and the expectancy or strength of expectancy of A=(e^i∫d^4 x([μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]-[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]) is no longer valid unless its seen
as an oscillatory system, which still accounts to nothing in the end of any integration.

(5) - How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?

Well, my own personal view...

I'd say its the most primal form of information which has had one of the largest impacts in the construction of the universe. But it's still a particle afterall :)
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #57 on: 13/11/2009 05:02:27 »

 But it's still a particle afterall :)
Yes, after all the distortions of it's primal state.

In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. This notion of points in space relative to the wave is one I'm having trouble with. How can a homogenous wave, in it's pure state, have any particular points? I visualize a wave as the kinetic action on space that the release of energy induces to it. As the wave radiates forth from it's source, each blanketing pulse of energy does distinguish itself with crests and valleys of amplitude but, these crests and valleys are infinitely graduated in power and I can't rationalize any particular and definable points within singular bursts. However, where one blanketing burst meets another, one will find an area of intersecting amplitudes but I still don't visualize any particular points. That is unless, one suggests that along a line of intersecting waves, one must limit things to Planck lengths. In that case, each Planck length would have two points at each end of it's dimension. So maybe yes, I suppose one can talk in terms of points of amplitude.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #58 on: 13/11/2009 05:21:41 »
ince one contention is that electromagnetic fluctuation experience a charge in the presence of following the curved geodesic of a spacetime warp, and then the charge dissipating when beginning to move in a straight line again would mean that the gravitational field is what causes the photon to posses some innate and instrinic charge, whether it be positive, nuetral or propulsive, which all the works equations have attempted to describe these possible states.

The last one on the agenda however, is no charge at all, as described when travelling in a straight line. This derivation was a little harder.


A=(e^i∫d^4 x([μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]+[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ]) (1)
 
has no epsilon value. Epsilon is a small value, and when it's used in an equation like this:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξε_0(Mψ-Mψ]+[ξε_g(Mψ*-Mψ*]) (2)

It is itself a tensor so has a factor of √g' which is respectively negative. In mathematical terms, its the determinent of the metric tensor. Replacing this with the epsilon values we have:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξ√g'_0(Mψ-Mψ]+[ξ√g'_g(Mψ*-Mψ*]) (3)

But keeping in mind the supercomplex number (which by the way, hardly no scientist uses, but does respect it as an actual mathematical algebra), we could replace it by (i), which of course equals the same value of positive +1. This makes the negative value of the metric tensor positive |√g'|.

rearranging the components of equation (1), where A equals the components of all that interesting stuff going on in the exponential function, we now add the D'albertian wave equation ∂/∂t-Δ with the mass-squared term and we have:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξ√g'_0((∂/∂t-Δ + M)ψ-(∂/∂t-Δ + M)ψ)]+[ξ√g'_g((∂/∂t-Δ + M)ψ*-(∂/∂t-Δ + M)ψ*])

Where (∂/∂t-Δ + M)ψ = 0

→ = g_μν∂^ν∂^μ

Which is perfectly a Klein-gorden solution. Since there is the contraint in the determinent metric tensor quality remaining positively-valued (an unusual approach) requires that any gravitational force will be a resultant vector quantity of compressed (or of pressure-related) forces dependant on a small area of d^4, with a position (x). If the positional change is very minute (AS IN small, ir infinitessimal movements), as the case must imply, then the equation finally can be written as:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 δ(x-x')([ξ√g'_0((∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ-(∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ)]+[ξ√g'_g((∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ*-(∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ*])

The reason why when a small spatial composition is taken into account in a field, there is also a respective amount of small time. This are called the Planck Constraints, they are fundamentally-constant. This would mean we would be measuring the Langrangian Term of the particle in very small confinements.

This final equation, as i promised, is the last of the equations which can take into account a photon could have a zero-quantity of charge when not within the presence of a gravitational field. Though when subject to one, it could be argued it has to, as vern's theory goes.

 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #59 on: 13/11/2009 05:22:59 »

 But it's still a particle afterall :)
Yes, after all the distortions of it's primal state.

In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. This notion of points in space relative to the wave is one I'm having trouble with. How can a homogenous wave, in it's pure state, have any particular points? I visualize a wave as the kinetic action on space that the release of energy induces to it. As the wave radiates forth from it's source, each blanketing pulse of energy does distinguish itself with crests and valleys of amplitude but, these crests and valleys are infinitely graduated in power and I can't rationalize any particular and definable points within singular bursts. However, where one blanketing burst meets another, one will find an area of intersecting amplitudes but I still don't visualize any particular points. That is unless, one suggests that along a line of intersecting waves, one must limit things to Planck lengths. In that case, each Planck length would have two points at each end of it's dimension. So maybe yes, I suppose one can talk in terms of points of amplitude.

Good questions, let me think about it for about 10 mins over coffee
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #60 on: 13/11/2009 05:37:00 »
In another thread, Vern talks about the rise and fall of amplitudes associated with the wave and discribes this action as referenced to points in space. - wow.... that's kind of cepy by the way... i just involved the importance of the position term in

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 δ(x-x')([ξ√g'_0((∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ-(∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ)]+[ξ√g'_g((∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ*-(∂/∂δt-Δ + M)ψ*])

and the ''position term''has a very small value of δ(x-x') where x is the initial position and x' is the finale. Amplitudeal values, or polarizational points on a photon would actually oscillate between x and x', that is if charge also (and note this is important) that when mass has a change so does the magnetic force. In a wave solution, polarizations which have not
been determined actually exhibit both spin up and spin down states synonymously. You could argue easily that they ocillate between the two values, attentively assorting their possible possitions until something collapses their wave functions. Could these oscillations be achieved when two points in spacetime are considered under the equations given?



 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #61 on: 13/11/2009 05:54:57 »
Vern


you require also a flat spacetime yes? - This part of relativity would need to be reformulated for photon movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci-flat_manifold

Where this math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_manifold would be required, but i am not sure how to use that math in the link. I don't recognize the workings.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #62 on: 13/11/2009 06:04:53 »

 You could argue easily that they ocillate between the two values, attentively assorting their possible possitions until something collapses their wave functions. Could these oscillations be achieved when two points in spacetime are considered under the equations given?

Are we now taking about Planck time also. Maybe these oscillations are occuring between one Plank length and at intervals of one Planck time. Sounds like the Buzz of existence to me. Maybe time, space, and duration are all digital and nowhere is there an analog to be found.....................?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #63 on: 13/11/2009 06:59:51 »
Are we now taking about Planck time also. Maybe these oscillations are occuring between one Plank length and at intervals of one Planck time.

Exactly, but we are both talking about this as if its gospal. Its very speculative which is why i guess its in new theories. :)
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #64 on: 13/11/2009 07:51:39 »
I need to ask a question.

Are you saying that they should be balanced or that they shouldn't be balanced in your hypothesis, because if it the first one, then equation:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξε_0(Mψ-Mψ]+[ξε_g(Mψ*-Mψ*]) (1)

is balanced, because it takes into respect the electromagnetic permittivity added with that of the gravitational permittivity with a Langrangian term for M. More interestingly enough, Mψ is similar to the Klein-Gorden relationship. Here are some interesting reationships:

Mψ=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ

which results in plane wave solutions. By substitution, you can reconfigurate eq.(1) into:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ]+[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ])

Which is very attractive as a wave equation.

We could manipulate the equation even more to have nuetral components after taking ino account, from a Klein-Gorden relationship, where for manipulative convenience we can rewrite the plane wave solutions in  quantized form as:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξε_0((∂-M)ψ*-(∂-M)]+[ξε_g((∂-M)ψ*-(∂-M)ψ*])

This is suppose, would cancel them out, or at least, this is my interpretation of the equation.



|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ]+[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ])

I apologize. This equation was a complete muddle. It should have been:

|(∫F_g vt)_<A_k>|=∫-▼φ(ћ(c/G))_g βt^(e^i ∫d^4 x([ξε_0(-∂t(ψ)-(-∂t(ψ)+▼ψ))]+[ξε_g(-∂t(ψ)-(-∂t(ψ)+ ▼ψ))])
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #65 on: 13/11/2009 18:23:38 »
The points I refer to are the peak amplitude places in the sine curve that governs a photon's amplitude. A photon wave does not extend flat wise like a water wave. It moves as peaks, like a clown's hat. The area around the peaks drive the peaks through space. You can replace the words peaks with the word points of which I speak. When you consider that it is the surrounding fields that drive the points through space, and consider that interaction only happens in the path of peak amplitude, the slit experiments are all satisfied.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2009 18:26:55 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #66 on: 13/11/2009 18:30:08 »
Vern


you require also a flat spacetime yes? - This part of relativity would need to be reformulated for photon movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci-flat_manifold

Where this math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_manifold would be required, but i am not sure how to use that math in the link. I don't recognize the workings.

Yes; flat space-time is required so that relativity phenomena is naturally predicted. I didn't invent this; it was known at the turn of the century. You've probably seen H. Ziegler's comment to Einstein and Max Planck. I've posted the link a few times.

I haven't studied manifolds since my speculations don't require them.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2009 18:31:54 by Vern »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #67 on: 14/11/2009 00:47:47 »
The points I refer to are the peak amplitude places in the sine curve that governs a photon's amplitude. A photon wave does not extend flat wise like a water wave. It moves as peaks, like a clown's hat. The area around the peaks drive the peaks through space. You can replace the words peaks with the word points of which I speak. When you consider that it is the surrounding fields that drive the points through space, and consider that interaction only happens in the path of peak amplitude, the slit experiments are all satisfied.

The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #68 on: 14/11/2009 15:08:32 »
Quote
The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form

Thanks, I did not know that.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2009 15:27:34 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #69 on: 14/11/2009 15:22:44 »
Quote from: Ethos
I suggest that when the straight line path of the photon is influenced by a gravitational field, it not only responds with a resultant charge, it takes on the property of mass. Mass and charge go hand in hand. Like the gyroscope, the photon wave resists a change in it's trajectory and when this wave is forced to deviate, it responds by taking on the character of mass with charge.
I missed this on my first scan through the new posts. Yes; I agree. Any time the path of a photon is bent, there is charge and mass in the bend area. This explains the temporary tangles that produce the zoo of particles downstream of particle collisions in accelerators.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #70 on: 16/11/2009 18:25:59 »
There can be no final classical theory. In fact, causal events must be removed and only applied to this scale of macorscopic interactions.

To solidify these inexorable points, we may as well just rid of the classical sense only if we can make conciousness a non-classical theory (difficult to explain so not right now :) ) - BUT IN A NTUSHELL; i totally agree with vern.

As i said some of his hypothesis are becoming a guilty pleasure, because at first i wasn't all too appealed by the complexities of magnetic and photon cycles.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #71 on: 16/11/2009 18:26:50 »
Quote
The Dirac Delta Function is a mathematical peak form

Thanks, I did not know that.

You're welcome. It's just probability really. I can teach you if you like, its very simple.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #72 on: 16/11/2009 21:17:07 »
I looked it up and I think I've got it now.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #73 on: 17/11/2009 10:39:27 »
Cool.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #74 on: 17/11/2009 18:52:22 »
Vern, correct me if i am wrong, but your thesis requires a zero-magnetic moment/charge?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Why abandon cause and effect?
« Reply #74 on: 17/11/2009 18:52:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums