1
New Theories / Can I get some math help?
« on: 10/10/2018 01:37:59 »
I need help with the math describing the proto-particle. I can describe what is needed, I just am very poor at creating math.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What's a black hole made of?
« on: 09/10/2018 13:57:18 »That is incorrect. Light is always moving when going into a black hole. It's merely slowing down. A particle like a photon can always be moving towards the event horizon and still never get there. Its sort of like Zeno's paradox. First its moving at c, then later at c/2 then c/4 then c/5 ....... At no time in that sequence is the photon at rest.It does not slow down, it only appears so to an outside observer, black holes are really not that mysterious, they are simply bodies with an escape velocity greater than c.
3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What's a black hole made of?
« on: 09/10/2018 13:52:58 »All of that is wrong. Where did you get that idea from?I will see if I can find a reputable link, in the meantime can you explain why you believe it to be wrong?
This should suffice!
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/poster1.html
4
New Theories / Re: Proto-particle
« on: 07/10/2018 16:00:02 »
I should mention that the particle formed by the proto-particles has a discrete mass over a definable area, something the proto particle does not.
5
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What's a black hole made of?
« on: 07/10/2018 00:49:16 »The same thing applies to all matter because all matter is slower than light.
See Eq 10.
Only in reference to the observer, a object traveling faster than c relative to the observer, could not be observed, referenced to the object itself it would not be moving at all. Many are mislead by the idea that the gravity of a black hole rips objects asunder. This is not known, time and space dilation becomes very tricky ground to tread upon.
6
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What's a black hole made of?
« on: 07/10/2018 00:40:57 »
A black hole can be made up of very normal matter, it depends on the size of the black hole. The super massive black hole thought to be at the center of the milky way should have an average mass density about the same as water on Earth. All bodies have a Schwarzchild radius, in those that are not black holes this radius is smaller than that of the body itself.
7
New Theories / Re: Proto-particle
« on: 05/10/2018 16:17:09 »Have you asked anyone who's worked on the Higgs particle theory?The Highs particle was found to have color, this would indicate underlying structure.
8
New Theories / Re: Proto-particle
« on: 04/10/2018 23:10:21 »What your doing with the current a-priori definitions for time and space is an excellent way to tackle the unknowability of gravity.....define a "proto-particle", as you have. You're essentially labelling a red-herring, gravity, in the quantum world. Its a good idea, yet what do you think the obvious obstacles are? For instance, is not what the "Higgs" particle aimed to offer the same as your proposed "proto-particle"?
No, this non-particle is very different indeed! I say non-particle because the gravity well without anything producing it would simply evaporate... The solution to this problem is what produces an actual particle...
Two or more of these proto-particles orbiting one another would not only serve to sustain each, but would do so via angular momentum... Spin!
Currently I am thinking the very simplest configuration would be three proto-particles orbiting one another at a distance where the schwarzchild radius of each intersected the center of its two partners, this is speculative of course, much math to be done... I would appreciate greatly some help here. I have a very abstract mind, my math skills are limited in that I can usually understand math applied to physics, however I am rather weak when it comes to creating the math.
The particle created by the combination of proto-particles has mass, spin and one other property... It is polarized! I have not described charge in this particle yet, but I am beginning to see the path to it.
Understand this particle has all these properties exhibited by a single field... the gravitational field.
9
New Theories / Re: Proto-particle
« on: 02/10/2018 14:44:51 »I should have been clearer, I am speaking of non-composite fields.You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).
Hello Butch,
Why do you only consider two ways ?
10
New Theories / Re: Proto-particle
« on: 01/10/2018 18:55:42 »
My proto-particle is a gravity well, it is not creating the gravity well, can anyone spot the immediate problem with that? Hint: It is what led me to call it a proto-particle.
11
New Theories / Re: Proto-particle
« on: 01/10/2018 03:34:42 »
The electron has no underlying structure that we know of, neither do quarks... At the quantum level a particle really has no shape.
I should have been clearer about fields, I was referring to non-composite fields..
I should have been clearer about fields, I was referring to non-composite fields..
12
New Theories / Proto-particle
« on: 30/09/2018 13:36:56 »
While giving some thought to the standard model several things occurred to me...
1) Any entity with more than one property, must have underlying structure.
2) Fermions and bosons represent very different particles (I will elaborate).
3) If indeed point (1) is valid then consequently at the quantum level there can only be a single field.
You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).
I proposed to some colleagues that a true particle was an embedment in a gravitational field and that a photon was a wave propagation in the same field, there immediate objection was that gravity cannot be blocked, my responses was "Can a gravitational wave be blocked, attenuated or reflected?" The only answer to this inquiry was "Good question".
So I went on with my minds exploration of the nature of quanta, it has brought me to what I have dubbed the proto-particle. What seemed a simple idea has taken on monstrous proportion and I find that I will need a great deal of help evolving the model of the proto-particle. I will present it in small digestible pieces and wait for comments. I thank you in advance for your participation.
The proto-particle is a gravity well and nothing more, at a single point its mass density is infinite. We can plot this as gravitational force, however distance as the x axis presents an unknown quantity. I have found it more useful to plot it as escape velocity in units of 'c', 1 on the x axis then being the Schwarzschild radius. I will pause at this time to receive comments.
1) Any entity with more than one property, must have underlying structure.
2) Fermions and bosons represent very different particles (I will elaborate).
3) If indeed point (1) is valid then consequently at the quantum level there can only be a single field.
You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).
I proposed to some colleagues that a true particle was an embedment in a gravitational field and that a photon was a wave propagation in the same field, there immediate objection was that gravity cannot be blocked, my responses was "Can a gravitational wave be blocked, attenuated or reflected?" The only answer to this inquiry was "Good question".
So I went on with my minds exploration of the nature of quanta, it has brought me to what I have dubbed the proto-particle. What seemed a simple idea has taken on monstrous proportion and I find that I will need a great deal of help evolving the model of the proto-particle. I will present it in small digestible pieces and wait for comments. I thank you in advance for your participation.
The proto-particle is a gravity well and nothing more, at a single point its mass density is infinite. We can plot this as gravitational force, however distance as the x axis presents an unknown quantity. I have found it more useful to plot it as escape velocity in units of 'c', 1 on the x axis then being the Schwarzschild radius. I will pause at this time to receive comments.
Pages: [1]