Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 12:24:47
1 - Constitution of the gravitational oscillator:
This linear oscillator uses a particle of mass m oscillating vertically along the vector G of gravity. The oscillation has two phases. The first is the phase of the fall of the particle with the force G, and the second is the reverse phase which corresponds to the vertical ejection of the particle given by a pulse of energy E.
Rising oscillation of the particle = E
Descending oscillation of the particle = G.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator.png)
Gravity is energy, but inverse to E for our case:
E - G = 0
Momentum of the particle in the oscillator:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-pmv.png)
Speed and acceleration of the particle according to the constant g:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-v.png)
2 - Heisenberg uncertainty principle
The integration of the constant g and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-incertitude.png)
Momentum k given to the particle after the pulse:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-heisenberg.png)
Coherent states of the oscillator and the uncertainty principle:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-coherent-states.png)
3 - Electron and speed of light:
The quantum gravity called z would then make the particle fall from the surface, to then reappear thanks to the energy. As much the constant g has an acceleration on a relativistic object, then z would be a constant accelerating the quantum particle to reach the speed of light.
We can determine the amount of energy it would take to move the electron to c-1:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-electon.png)
Quantum gravitational potential energy of the electron and constant z:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-potential.png)
Part II
Substitution of the mechanical stress of impact and rebound caused by the particle during its fall, by a continuity of the kinetic energy of the particle towards the antimatter.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.
Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.
Post by: Origin on 19/07/2021 12:53:37
Gravity is energyWhat do you mean by that?
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 13:36:13
Gravity is energyWhat do you mean by that?
I really mean that the force of gravity is energy. Indeed gravity is able to keep matter in the direction of its force field.
To move or maintain matter you need energy. I'm talking about gravity there, because you also need energy to be able to do exactly the same effect. Indeed and according to Einstein gravity is comparable to a vertical upward acceleration, which allows us to stay on the ground.
To check...
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 13:39:19
Post by: Halc on 19/07/2021 13:53:51
I really mean that the force of gravity is energy.Force and energy are different things. Gravity is neither. All three have different units.
Quote
Indeed gravity is able to keep matter in the direction of its force field.Gravity isn't a force field, else a small rock would weigh the same as a big one.
Your whole OP makes contradictions of units like that.
Quote
To move or maintain matter you need energy.Not so. At a bare minimum, in order to move matter, one only needs to consider an object in a frame where it is already moving. Motion is relative to an abstract frame, not a physical thing.
Don't know what you mean by 'maintain'.
Quote
according to Einstein gravity is comparable to a vertical upward accelerationNow you're equating gravity (the local gravitational field at least) to acceleration, not energy or force. That's far closer to the mark, at least in a Newtonian sense.
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 14:10:00
Small remark it takes energy to counter the force of gravity, as for rockets, or hydrolytic dams which provides electrical energy thanks to the difference in level of water due to the force of gravity.
Don't know what you mean by 'maintain'.
Example, keep the earth at a good distance from the sun.
Post by: puppypower on 19/07/2021 15:40:18
Gravity is an acceleration with the units of acceleration a=d/t/t. This one part distance and two parts time. This second time vector has a connection to the time saving nature of quanta.
These two different time vectors can be easily seen within a star. General relativity tells us that space-time is most contracted in the core of the star and expands as we move outward. This time vector is t1.
The second time vector is connected to the atomic and energy vibrational frequencies which are fastest in the fusion core; t2. The t2 is going in the opposite direction as t1. Gravity causes a slower reference;t1, with faster frequencies; t2.
T2 by being connected to matter and energy frequencies, brings us in contact with the quantum platform of the universe, since these things are how quantum are expressed. We save time; quantum, while also speeding up time via faster frequency matter and energy. Space-time reference and t1, is not critical to this, since the laws of physics, quanta and t2, are the same in all references.
This bring up an interesting thought experiment. Say you were in moving SR reference where time appears to slow and distance appeared highly contracted. As we look out the window, we see a large amount of mass that appears distance contracted enough, to where fusion should begin, but there is no fusion. Mass is an invariant. This is a reference illusion since it only uses t1 but lacks t2 to close the deal. SR is based on velocity which is d/t so its lacks t2. Gravity does include the second time vector.
Your oscillator experiment intuitively uses time as the connecting variable.
Post by: Origin on 19/07/2021 15:52:21
This second time vector has a connection to the time saving nature of quanta.Time is not a vector. Will you ever be able to learn this? The line "time saving nature of quanta", is absurd.
The second time vector is connected to the atomic and energy vibrational frequencies which are fastest in the fusion core; t2. The t2 is going in the opposite direction as t1. Gravity causes a slower reference;t1, with faster frequencies; t2.More ignorant word salad, no point in reading any further.
Post by: Origin on 19/07/2021 15:55:22
Gravity is energy, but inverse to E for our case:You might as well write:
E - G = 0
Mass - Last Tuesday = 0
It makes as much sense.
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 16:19:25
You might as well write:
Mass - Last Tuesday = 0
It makes as much sense.
Unlike pure energy in varying amounts expressed in joule, gravity is only quantified energy. To find a transformation from gravity to energy. I'm working on it. I will take the example of the hydroelectric dam or the weight of the clock going down and providing energy.
Even wiki makes an approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 16:53:03
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit simple harmonic motion.
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0
But it's not a very interesting system (and, of course, it's impossible).
I wonder if it's what the OP is on about.
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 17:08:25
If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit simple harmonic motion.
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0
But it's not a very interesting system (and, of course, it's impossible).
I wonder if it's what the OP is on about.
You cannot reach the other pole by simply falling. Indeed at the center of the earth gravity is reversed and once past the center you need energy E. Otherwise you would have your feet to send it to the pole at the end.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 17:27:11
You cannot reach the other pole by simply falling.Yes you would.
It's simple energy conservation.
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 17:34:26
Yes you would.
It's simple energy conservation.
I misunderstood. So you have a fall caused by gravity from the north pole to the center, then a transformation into kinetic energy from the center to the south pole.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 18:57:03
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 22:10:52
... and then it falls back to the North Pole.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
Yes that's it. A kind of perpetual motion. But in my case for the opposite particle at the south pole, the problem remains in antimatter. More precisely on its location and its quantity which is not measured or observed. In addition there would be an overlap between matter and antimatter from south to north and north to the south. I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter. The problem being the path of fall and kinetics which does not suit the model.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 22:17:05
I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.They have nothing to do with eachother.
There is practically no antimatter at the centre of the Earth.
Post by: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 22:25:48
... There is practically no antimatter at the centre of the Earth.
There is practically no antimatter at all, into the universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 22:29:27
Post by: evan_au on 19/07/2021 23:16:01
Quote from: Kartazion
gravity is only quantified energyPhysicists do think that gravity is quantised, with a hypothetical particle called the graviton.
The electromagnetic force is far more powerful than the gravitational field.
- Compared to the more familiar photon (force carrier for the electromagnetic force), the graviton carries very little energy.
- Our current technology has no way to detect individual gravitons
- But we can just detect the tsunami of gravitons unleashed by dramatic events like black holes merging
For our current technology, in our Solar System, you could just as easily treat gravity as being continuous (ie not quantised). It is only in extreme environments like the event horizon of a black hole that the quantised nature of gravitation will probably become important - but we don't know, because current formulations of quantised gravity don't work, either!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Post by: gem on 20/07/2021 00:36:22
So Halc
I really mean that the force of gravity is energy.Force and energy are different things. Gravity is neither. All three have different units.QuoteIndeed gravity is able to keep matter in the direction of its force field.Gravity isn't a force field, else a small rock would weigh the same as a big one.
Could you please expand on the part highlighted in bold please, I'm not sure I follow, are you saying this is a way of discriminating between GR and Newton ?
Post by: Kartazion on 20/07/2021 01:33:55
Quote from: Kartaziongravity is only quantified energyPhysicists do think that gravity is quantised, with a hypothetical particle called the graviton.
The electromagnetic force is far more powerful than the gravitational field.
- Compared to the more familiar photon (force carrier for the electromagnetic force), the graviton carries very little energy.
- Our current technology has no way to detect individual gravitons
- But we can just detect the tsunami of gravitons unleashed by dramatic events like black holes merging
For our current technology, in our Solar System, you could just as easily treat gravity as being continuous (ie not quantised). It is only in extreme environments like the event horizon of a black hole that the quantised nature of gravitation will probably become important - but we don't know, because current formulations of quantised gravity don't work, either!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
The number of gravitons placed end to end (point to point), ie, on the direction of the vertical height, then gives the energy of gravitational potential; Because each increment/decrement of the graviton, is obtained by addition or subtraction of the linear accumulation of 'ends' or quanta of energy. It would then be more user-friendly to admit an energy level quantified by an orbital principle like that of the electron in the atom and its n shells. Indeed I am referring to the amplitude of the gravitational wave which would then be determined by the interval of the graviton (Compton wavelength and Planck – Einstein relation).
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/graviton.png)
It would then become easy to take into account the height / length noted in nm to the number of gravitons accumulated over a length of radius in order to be able to have a relation between the constant g and the number of gravitons in relation to the potential energy. This could allow to combine the relativistic constant g with the quantum graviton by the gravitational wave.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/07/2021 02:01:48
Force and energy are different things. Gravity is neither. All three have different units.
At least I learned that gravity is not a force as learned in school. Thanks.
Gravity isn't a force field, else a small rock would weigh the same as a big one.
Ironically for a fall a small rock would have the same speed as a big one.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/07/2021 04:40:40
In the gravitational oscillator that I present, there are two types of radiation. First there is the vertical radiation, called fermionic, either the oscillation of the particle from bottom to top and from top to bottom; And there is horizontal radiation, or bosonic radiation. For fermionic radiation and with the example of lepton we have a movement of the particle from bottom to top in the oscillator which allows to transport an electric charge to the surface of the energy sea. In the opposite direction, either from top to bottom the particle goes back in neutrino, either with a neutral charge.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-radiation-fermion.png)
In this model there is a very strong link between energy and electric charge by potential difference, and the neutrino and gravity.
The charge deposited by potential difference at the surface of the energy sea will then be a component part of the matter for an ephemeral moment t after the following charge has been consumed.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-radiation-photon-gif.gif)
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-radiation-gluon.png)
Vertical radiation = Fermionic matter = particle
Horizontal radiation = Bosonic matter = wave
Post by: Kartazion on 21/07/2021 11:01:25
Post by: Kartazion on 21/07/2021 12:44:24
Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.
Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.
It is said that the tunnel effect is a purely quantum effect which cannot be explained by classical mechanics. False.
When the particle passes through matter, then its kinetics are reduced. This means that the particle due to its loss of kinetics falls into the lower energy level of the potential well.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/tunnel-effect-kinetic.png)
The kinetic disturbance from the ZPE of the particle makes it possible to remain in the false vacuum, until a potential barrier slows it down and then falls through the virtual slit.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/tunnel-effect-well.png)
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/tunnel-effect-cascade.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 21/07/2021 16:12:37
Post by: Kartazion on 22/07/2021 08:47:42
I see that there is no question.
I then wish to continue in the explanation of the possibilities of the gravitational oscillator.
Here are the parts already covered:
- Gravity
- Tunnel Effect
- Singularity (Gravitational)
- Zero Point Energy
- Antimatter
- Neutrino
- Radiation Baryon/Boson*
Here are the following topics to develop:
- Dark matter
- Hawking Radiation
- Quantum Chromodynamics
- CPT symmetry
- Time dilation
- Dark Energy
- Quantum Vacuum
* Electromagnetic wave
* Weak interaction
Which one do you want?
Post by: Origin on 22/07/2021 14:16:42
I see that there is no question.I assume there are no questions since these posts are just word salad and pseudoscience. What would be the point of asking questions?
Post by: Kartazion on 22/07/2021 14:28:50
I assume there are no questions since these posts are just word salad and pseudoscience. What would be the point of asking questions?
I think you are lost in how the oscillator works. Or can you detail which part you don't understand?
Post by: Kartazion on 22/07/2021 15:26:35
I am waiting for your technical questions regarding everything I have describe.
Post by: Origin on 22/07/2021 18:10:17
I am waiting for your technical questions regarding everything I have describe.For crying out loud, you showed you don't know the difference between energy, force and acceleration which is high school stuff, so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is going to be hopeless. There is no shame in not knowing this stuff if you don't have an education in physics, but I have seen this 1000 times before. You are making WAGs (wild ass guesses) based on half understood concepts from internet articles. It would be much more productive to ask questions.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/07/2021 18:14:48
... you don't know the difference between energy, force and acceleration which is high school stuff, ...
Show me where you see this?
Post by: Kartazion on 22/07/2021 20:33:17
... so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is going to be hopeless.I would like to see you talk about quantum mechanics.
There is no shame in not knowing this stuff if you don't have an education in physics, but I have seen this 1000 times before.There is no shame if you do not understand each other. I am therefore the 1001 th.
Post by: Origin on 23/07/2021 03:34:32
Show me where you see this?E - G = 0
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 05:59:58
E - G = 0
Yes, it was to generate interest. But that's all ? Of everything I have written or said, is this the only thing that makes you think that I am unable to understand what I am saying?
You can see that I am an innovator.
I claim and for a perfect balance of the oscillator and with the conservation of energy in a vacuum that: the force of energy supplied E is equal to the force of gravity G.
So my E-G=0 is not wrong. This gives gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0
This is why, and In the case of the vertical displacement of the particle of mass m, that I said that gravity is energy but reverses to energy E.
So?
Post by: Origin on 23/07/2021 13:31:06
So my E-G=0 is not wrong. This gives gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0E is not the symbol for kinetic energy.
G is not the symbol for gravitational potential energy.
The equation 'gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0', is wrong.
Like I said you don't know the very basics of physics, so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is absurd.
Why don't you read a few articles on medicine and then propose a better way to preform brain surgery, it would make as much sense as what you are doing here.
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 13:39:43
The equation 'gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0', is wrong.
Like I said you don't know the very basics of physics, so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is absurd.
Tell that to your friend. Look:
...
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0
...
...
Why don't you read a few articles on medicine and then propose a better way to preform brain surgery, it would make as much sense as what you are doing here.
All that you want. But one thing is certain, I am the inventor of this symmetrical gravitational oscillator. Who draws in perpetual motion. No need for math to understand. Anything you can disprove will have no effect on how well this oscillator works. I imagine then never to see this model again on the net other than me.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
So?
Post by: Origin on 23/07/2021 14:27:57
Tell that to your friend. Look:He was giving you a specific case where the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. In other words PEinitial - KEfinal = 0. For that specific case the equation is correct.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 16:53:03
...
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0
In the general case that is not true. For example my coffee cup that is sitting on my table has a certain amount of PE relative to the ground the table sits on. So PE - KE does not equal 0.
If I have a weight 1000 meters above the ground and I release it, after 5 seconds it will have a certain amount of KE due to its velocity. So KE - PE does not equal 0.
You should learn the basics before moving to more advanced stuff.
But one thing is certain, I am the inventor of this symmetrical gravitational oscillator. Who draws in perpetual motion.
Yikes! You REALLY need to learn the basics of physics.
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 15:00:37
He was giving you a specific case where the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. In other words PEinitial - KEfinal = 0. For that specific case the equation is correct.
In the general case that is not true. For example my coffee cup that is sitting on my table has a certain amount of PE relative to the ground the table sits on. So PE - KE does not equal 0.
If I have a weight 1000 meters above the ground and I release it, after 5 seconds it will have a certain amount of KE due to its velocity. So KE - PE does not equal 0.
Specific case? This specific case is my oscillator. I see you have not understood that it is an oscillator. There are no 5s after. Your cup of coffee is not an oscillator too. You confuse the OP. In addition, everything takes place in a vacuum.
You should learn the basics before moving to more advanced stuff.
Yikes! You REALLY need to learn the basics of physics.
To see that my oscillator is operational? So what? My oscillator oscillates during this time with or without. Did you understand it? My oscillator?
If you understand it you will see the interest it carries.
The advantage of this oscillator is that it can be understood by everyone.
Prove to me rather that my oscillator does not work rather than saying that I have not the level 101.
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 15:35:47
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 16:04:16
*There is the avoidance by the kinetics which makes it possible not to fall into the true vacuum of the singularity. Indeed it happens at the level of the event horizon.
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 16:15:15
I guess the singularity avoidance should look like this:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/bh_visualization.jpg)
Post by: Kartazion on 23/07/2021 20:30:42
Information cannot be lost. Stephen Hawking finally retracted his statement on the information paradox, saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.
My statement from the OP.
... The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/07/2021 14:17:01
If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit simple harmonic motion.
...
Hello.
The oscillation is indeed harmonic insofar as it is identical by symmetry of its movement. But in our case the particle experiences an acceleration as well as a reduction in its speed during its oscillation. In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed.
My question is isn't it more an anharmonic rather than a harmonic oscillation? We assume In your example of the earth that the density is constant.
Thanks.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/07/2021 22:23:42
I see that there is a lot of talk about dark energy on the net. In fact, in the gravitational oscillator, the incrementation of the particle, that is to say a height of radiation greater than the previous height, is produced by additional energy called dark energy; And which makes the particle advance further and further from its gravitational source. The example of a galaxy, where inside does not know an expansion of size in relation to its super massive black hole, uses a constant amount of energy E in relation to gravity G. The increase in this energy E that we have seen so far, then becomes dark energy, while it is only a quantity of energy greater than the previous energy impulse.
In other words, to move the particle further and further away from the singularity (ie big-bang / galaxy) with the gravitational oscillator, more energy is needed. This extra amount of energy is dark energy. Dark energy corresponds to the increase in the size of the potential of the well.
Post by: Kartazion on 31/07/2021 07:09:46
Here is a more subtle explanation to explain dark matter and quantum vacuum and quantum chromodynamics in relation to the oscillator.
Based on how the anharmonic oscillator mechanism works, the particle's path goes through different physical stages. First it would be fair to speak of the energy flow of the particle to express dark matter and of quantum vacuum. The particle would oscillate rapidly in the vicinity of the singularity (dark matter and more quantum vacuum) and in a second time more slowly in the vicinity of the matter (chromodynamics). In this case of large displacement, where the particle oscillate rapidly, it becomes an energy flow expressed by the quantum vacuum. The convergence of the energy flow of the quantum vacuum, in a smaller space, close to the singularity, then in turn becomes dark matter. At its opposite, there is the matter expressed by quantum chromodynamics.
Quantum chromodynamics would only be a duplication of the particle itself. To be continued.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/anharmonic-gravitational-oscillator.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 31/07/2021 15:31:26
Quote
Quantum ChromoDynamics effects produce an effective periodic potential in which the axion field moves. The oscillations of the axion field about the minimum of the effective potential, the so-called misalignment mechanism, generate a cosmological population of cold axions with an abundance depending on the mass of the axion. With a mass above 10−11 times the electron mass, axions could account for dark matter, thus be both a dark-matter candidate and a solution to the strong CP problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion)
(https://media.arxiv-vanity.com/render-output/4842999/x1.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 01/08/2021 16:26:19
Quantum chromodynamics is the alternation of the particle itself to constitute the different quarks.
We can consider that this experience of obvervation is rare. On the other hand, if this is not observed, then the collapse of the wave function is irrelevant. This implies that the probability of the particle being in the combination of a proton or neutron is low. It belongs to the discipline of quantum decoherence where the particle is superimposed everywhere at the same time since there is only one. During the observation, an effort is to ask the quantum system to seriously position the combination of the particle. This is the preferred expression I would use to define what has just been described here: “I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” Albert Einstein.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/chromodynamic.png)
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/08/2021 17:58:40
Minor question: Who added the poll to the top of this thread?
Post by: Kartazion on 01/08/2021 18:04:42
Hi.
Minor question: Who added the poll to the top of this thread?
Hi.
Well it's me. Anyone can vote now.
Cordially.
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/08/2021 20:50:10
One issue with this thread is that other people have stopped replying to it but you are still going. You're still producing text and complicated diagrams etc. It must take you hours.
I have to ask why are you doing this? Never mind the poll and asking people what they think. What do you want to happen or expect to get from your time on the forum today?
I'll answer your poll if you like, the next time I'm online. I'll find the closest answer but at the moment I think the answer would be just Curiousity. Why are you doing this? I can't really comment on the content much because I don't realistically have the time to read it. I have read only the first few posts.
Best wishes.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/08/2021 04:11:47
... What do you want to happen or expect to get from your time on the forum today?
... Why are you doing this? I can't really comment on the content much because I don't realistically have the time to read it. I have read only the first few posts.
I hope by this forum that the solution that I expose through the oscillator will be the future example of the explanation of quantum mechanics associated with relativistic physics.
I make no special effort to produce what I am describing. I demistify step by step the quantum mechanics by simple examples associated with an oscillator of level 101. The diagrams that I use are also very simple and sound only the result of the an.harmonic oscillator. The description is adapted to the reality of observation and to the measurements obtained.
The reason why I am posting in this section is simple, and is to claim an alliance of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics by the force of gravity through the oscillator.
Not to understand it is a fact, but come back to me when you have read it.
Regards.
Post by: Eternal Student on 02/08/2021 12:51:52
Thanks for your previous reply.
(i) You obviously feel strongly about your idea. That's great but you should try to get it published as an article or paper in some journal (or magazine).
There are many (now famous) ideas that people struggled to get recognised. For example, several ideas produced by famous Physicists were turned down for publication and had to be edited and re-submitted to other journals several times before they were published. These ideas are now fully recognised and often quite revolutionary. There is no history that I'm aware of to indicate that a forum is a short-cut to getting a paper published in a journal.
(ii) You may be over-estimating the audience of this forum. Professional scientists can and do go to actual conferences and meetings. They struggle to find the time to read peer-reviewed articles. They cannot read all of them. They do not generally search through on-line forums for new ideas. There are far too many forums and far too many people presenting new ideas. It would be an extremely inefficient use of their time. This forum in particular favours an audience of people with a general interest in science but not necessarily a graduate or under-graduate level of understanding. Many of the questions answered and topics discussed on the TNS podcast do not require specialist scientific knowledge much above school level.
(iii) Have you considered proposing a trade with existing forum users? There are several other people presenting articles in the "New Theories" section. Perhaps you could propose that you will read some of these and comment while asking some of those authors to read and review your work.
(iv) Let's assume that your idea is fantastic. Simply writing it down here won't get the world to notice it.
(v) I have spent some of my time reading some of your posts. It is lacking references to other texts and the work of others. This is a very worrying thing. Wikipedia is not considered a high value or highly reliable reference.
Best wishes.
Post by: Colin2B on 02/08/2021 15:03:29
I hope by this forum that the solution that I expose through the oscillator will be the future example of the explanation of quantum mechanics associated with relativistic physics.Perhaps I should expand on what @Eternal Student has said.
The main purpose of the forum is educational outreach to the general public and those interested in science. We do not expect a high level of education or deep understanding of the principles of science, our objective is to promote interest and explain things at the level of the listener.
We have a number of professional scientists here, but our time is mainly taken up with our own projects. Some of us keep an eye on this section to see if there is anything of interest, others might engage on specific problems they see. No response does not mean agreement.
If you really want your ideas to be widely known you would be better to publish a paper (in the correct format) on a site like https://arxiv.org/
It would help your ideas to be read if you have a solution to a problem not covered by existing theories and your ideas are in response to specific experiments you have performed - make sure you include full details of your experiments.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/08/2021 01:58:37
I do have an account on arXiv. But we must get an endorsement from another user to submit an article to category physics. Can any of you sponsor me? I just wish to begin with publishing the basis of the gravitational oscillator and not the whole theory that I have published here. Publish the gravitational oscillator adding to singularity avoidance would be great but more complicated to be accepted.
Regards.
Post by: Eternal Student on 03/08/2021 02:09:30
I'm not registered with arXiv and wouldn't be able to help. Sorry.
What follows is just general discussion:
The following issues would concern me about any paper or article submitted based on this work:
(i) I can't see any references to any other academic paper, text book or resource. There are only some Wikipedia links.
(ii) The quality of explanation is poor. Mathematics is the area I used to specialise in, not Physics, so I may not understand all of it easily. However, I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to show here. Writing a good paper isn't about deliberately trying to dazzle the audience. You are trying to explain or present an idea to your peers. This is a separate point from suggesting that the idea is wrong, so it's worth me phrasing it another way: Regardless of whether the idea has merits or not, your article has to explain it to other people.
(iii) You frequently re-define or re-imagine terminology that is already in use. Early examples have been pointed out by other users of this forum - force, energy, gravity these all get used interchangeably. Another example appears in reply #23 where you introduce the terms "fermionic radiation" and "bosonic radiation". There is a use of symbols for the uncertainity principle in the post #1 which makes me wonder if you've seen Δx and σx used in some articles and failed to recognise that they are the same thing. The uncertainty in position is the standard deviation when the position x is regarded as a random variable that can be observed.
It's not necessarily wrong to re-imagine or attempt to completely re-explain a model or idea in Physics. However, if you use the existing terminology then you are required to maintain the same meanings.
(iv) What makes you certain that this idea hasn't been presented before?
Don't get me worng, it probably hasn't - but what literature suvey have you done to check that these ideas are new? There are no references as I've already mentioned. It is quite possible that someone else has had similar ideas on atleast a small portion of this topic or alternatively has applied similar ideas to a different field of study. This is part of the beauty and value of the way scientific ideas are published currently. You don't always have to re-invent evrything from the beginning. There may be something else out there that has already proven to be useful and already solved some of the problems you are finding with your idea.
The Simple Harmonic Oscillator (SHO) is used in many theories. Classical field theory often requires a potential to be specified and SHO is often used. I'm fairly sure Black Body radiation can be explained or modelled as a group of oscillators. Something caused you to consider an oscillator for your model, let's see the links to this (and you should also see if the existing knowledge is helpful to you).
Best wishes.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/08/2021 08:33:12
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
Post by: Eternal Student on 03/08/2021 13:17:30
have you ever seen an oscillator like mine that uses gravity without a spring? This uses the gravitational pull of the black hole and an expulsion of energy from the black hole. Stephen Hawking saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.No I haven't.
Post by: Origin on 03/08/2021 17:57:05
expulsion of energy from the black hole.What exactly do you think that is?
Post by: Kartazion on 04/08/2021 00:27:50
expulsion of energy from the black hole.What exactly do you think that is?
This is a surprising question that you are asking me here. What do you want to know? Where does the black hole's energy come from?
In the Penrose process is said to make it possible when some of the black hole's energy is in the form of rotational kinetic energy. In this case, by sending a particle in the opposite direction to the rotation of the black hole, we will tend to decrease its kinetic energy of rotation. Indeed the force of gravity slows it down. For the quasars, their energy source comes from the accretion disk surrounding the black hole. Not to mention the astrophysical jet. Otherwise there is also the black hole evaporation.
Post by: Origin on 04/08/2021 11:38:06
This is a surprising question that you are asking me here. What do you want to know?What 'expulsion' energy are you talking about?
Post by: Kartazion on 04/08/2021 12:30:33
What 'expulsion' energy are you talking about?
Penrose process ... , astrophysical jet, ... the black hole evaporation ..., magnetic reconnection. All of these are clues that indicate that energy is being forced out from black holes. But the most important is to understand that it is my model which predicts and indicates an epulssion of energy in the current time space. That's why nothing goes into the black hole. In other words you assert that this amounts to saying that there would be no energy that animates us in relation to the singularity of the big bang.
Post by: Origin on 04/08/2021 14:01:55
That's why nothing goes into the black hole.Are you serious?
Post by: Kartazion on 04/08/2021 14:43:37
Are you serious?
Post by: Kartazion on 04/08/2021 16:04:12
Post by: Kartazion on 04/08/2021 16:49:29
Post by: Origin on 04/08/2021 18:28:27
Gravity draws us to it as much as energy plumps us up.I don't know what that means.
Post by: Origin on 04/08/2021 18:50:53
I am convinced that the supermassive black hole keeps the entire galaxy levitating by gravity and energy.What do you mean by levitating? Is English your first language or are you using nonstandard meanings?
Post by: Origin on 04/08/2021 18:55:41
It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy.There is no need for a 'push back" from the black hole. For example, do you think there is something in the sun that is pushing the planets away?
Post by: Origin on 04/08/2021 18:57:47
On the other hand I just then published the gravitational oscillator with the model of the hole through the EarthI've seen this concept discussed many times through the years.
Post by: Kartazion on 04/08/2021 19:09:14
I've seen this concept discussed many times through the years.
What are your sources?
Post by: Origin on 05/08/2021 01:10:53
What are your sources?Google this phrase: "tunnel through earth simple harmonic motion". You'll get hundreds of examples.
Post by: Kartazion on 05/08/2021 08:49:58
What do you mean by levitating? ...In suspend.
... Is English your first language or are you using nonstandard meanings?I am French
Gravity draws us to it as much as energy plumps us up.I don't know what that means.
There is no need for a 'push back" from the black hole. For example, do you think there is something in the sun that is pushing the planets away?If there was no repulsive energy then we would fall into the black hole or on the sun. So yes there is energy that pushes us as much as gravity attracts us
Google this phrase: "tunnel through earth simple harmonic motion". You'll get hundreds of examples.It's a good step forward there. Now I just have to take this principle of gravitational oscillator and make it work with the singularity of a black hole.
Post by: Origin on 05/08/2021 12:29:19
If there was no repulsive energy then we would fall into the black hole or on the sun. So yes there is energy that pushes us as much as gravity attracts usFirst, I think you are doing pretty well with your use of English.
There is no repulsive force necessary. You should look up orbital mechanics to help you see why.
The the International space station doesn't fall to earth because it is moving in at a high rate of speed perpendicular to the force of gravity. The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s. If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface. One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.
There is no repulsive force involved.
Post by: Kartazion on 05/08/2021 13:59:11
There is no repulsive force necessary. You should look up orbital mechanics to help you see why.
The the International space station doesn't fall to earth because it is moving in at a high rate of speed perpendicular to the force of gravity. The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s. If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface. One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.
There is no repulsive force involved.
Isn't it just energy that makes the station move 7.7 km/s forward? Isn't this energy that moves the earth forward as it orbits the sun?
Post by: Kartazion on 05/08/2021 14:16:20
*There is the avoidance by the kinetics which makes it possible not to fall into the true vacuum of the singularity. Indeed it happens at the level of the event horizon.
The event horizon in this case indicates the orbit. Kinetic energy is present. It is repulsion. Otherwise the object falls.
Post by: Origin on 05/08/2021 15:08:11
Isn't it just energy that makes the station move 7.7 km/s forward?No, There is no energy being used to move the ISS. There are no engines running and no energy being input into the ISS to maintain the speed. Once the ISS had attained the velocity of 7.7 km/s it will continue to move at that speed until some force is applied to slow it down or speed it up. This is a little complicated because there is the force of gravity (as described by Newtonian physics) that changes the direction of the ISS but not it's speed. Look up Newtons first law of motion.
It is difficult to discuss these ideas because it is clear that you have not taken any physics courses and so you don't know some of these fundamental concepts. I recommend that you look at online courses on youtube for first year physics. Do not watch random youtubes or you could get immersed in pseudoscience. I do not know any courses in French, but if the video is from a University site you will get good information.
Good luck.
Post by: Kartazion on 05/08/2021 15:22:50
No, There is no energy being used to move the ISS. There are no engines running and no energy being input into the ISS to maintain the speed. Once the ISS had attained the velocity of 7.7 km/s it will continue to move at that speed until some force is applied to slow it down or speed it up. This is a little complicated because there is the force of gravity (as described by Newtonian physics) that changes the direction of the ISS but not it's speed. Look up Newtons first law of motion.
Isn't it energy by conservation? There is a speed. Would you say that speed is without energy?
It is difficult to discuss these ideas because it is clear that you have not taken any physics courses and so you don't know some of these fundamental concepts. I recommend that you look at online courses on youtube for first year physics. Do not watch random youtubes or you could get immersed in pseudoscience. I do not know any courses in French, but if the video is from a University site you will get good information.
Good luck.
Yes I am working on it. Thanks
Post by: Origin on 05/08/2021 18:38:45
There is a speed. Would you say that speed is without energy?If I throw a ball in a vacuum, there will be energy imparted to the ball due to the force of my arm moving on the mass of the ball. With no further input of energy to the ball will continue moving in a straight line forever. Because the ball is moving and has mass, it has a set amount of Kinetic Energy. The KE does not make the ball move, the ball has KE because it has a velocity.
Post by: Kartazion on 05/08/2021 20:43:26
There is a speed. Would you say that speed is without energy?... Because the ball is moving and has mass, it has a set amount of Kinetic Energy. ...
It's just a matter of detail. The photon moves with the same principle while it is massless.
... it has a set amount of Kinetic Energy. ... The KE does not make the ball move, the ball has KE because it has a velocity.
The movement then has Kinetic Energy, right? In other words, an object that moves in a vacuum at the same speed has the same amount of energy. This is the energy I am talking about. This kinetic energy of the ISS station at 7.7 km/s which prevents the station from falling. This KE energy which allows the object in orbit not to fall to earth and corresponds to the energy which defies the force of gravity.
Conclusion. We really need the energy to keep the object from falling. Without any energy there would be the collapse of the whole universe.
Post by: Kartazion on 06/08/2021 02:09:21
In astrodynamics, the vis-viva equation*, also referred to as orbital-energy-invariance law, is one of the equations that model the motion of orbiting bodies. It is the direct result of the principle of conservation of mechanical energy which applies when the only force acting on an object is its own weight. In other words the law of conservation of energy according to which the sum of kinetic and potential energies is constant at any point of the orbit.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation)
... The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s. If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface. One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.
There is no repulsive force involved.
Ok this is not a repulsive force. It's just kinetic energy involved that keeps the station from falling.
The idea of directly associating the cause of energy in relation to gravity becomes evident in the model that I am trying to establish.
The tunnel effect
Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.
Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.
It is said that the tunnel effect is a purely quantum effect which cannot be explained by classical mechanics. False.
When the particle passes through matter, then its kinetics are reduced. This means that the particle due to its loss of kinetics falls into the lower energy level of the potential well.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/tunnel-effect-kinetic.png)
The kinetic disturbance from the ZPE of the particle makes it possible to remain in the false vacuum, until a potential barrier slows it down and then falls through the virtual slit.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/tunnel-effect-well.png)
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/tunnel-effect-cascade.png)
I must specify that the avoidance of the sigularity, by the kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, also occurs when the particle is at rest in the false vacuum, namely the ZPE; And which corresponds to the same celestial mechanics of the orbit of the planets around the star. In other words when the particle is at rest at the bottom of the well and it undergoes the ZPE disturbance of the false vacuum, then we understand that the particle orbiting around the gravitational singularity, rather than a vibratory disturbance. Indeed for an observer the reproduction of the path of the particle is expressed by a sinusoidal signal in time or elliptical by its magnitude. True vacuum is total collapse.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/08/2021 12:41:04
Post by: Origin on 09/08/2021 00:18:58
@Origin, after a dozen messages we now agree that the kinetic energy of an object in orbit is in a way a repulsive force towards gravity.No, of course not. The only force acting on the object is the attractive force of gravity.
I was rather hoping you would have abandoned this idea--
If there was no repulsive energy then we would fall into the black hole or on the sun. So yes there is energy that pushes us as much as gravity attracts us
Post by: Kartazion on 09/08/2021 00:51:37
Ok energy is not a force.
Ok energy is not repulsive.
But kinetic energy is linked with the force of gravity.
I just need the energy to be related to gravity for my model to work. That it.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/08/2021 02:36:12
1 - Gravitational Oscillator
Spoiler: show
2 - Radiation and Oscillation
Spoiler: show
3 - Radiation and Atom
Spoiler: show
4 - Matrix
Spoiler: show
Post by: Origin on 09/08/2021 03:14:41
But kinetic energy is linked with the force of gravity.How?
Post by: Kartazion on 09/08/2021 03:31:25
But kinetic energy is linked with the force of gravity.How?
The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html)
Newton's laws are used for the solution of many standard problems, but often there are methods using energy which are more straightforward. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobj.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobj.html)
There is also Energy Storage System Based on Gravity and Kinetic Energy https://themarketgossip.com/2021/08/07/energy-storage-system-based-on-gravity-and-kinetic-energy-market-size-status-and-forecast-2021-2027-energy-vault-gravitricity-quidnet-energy/
Post by: Origin on 09/08/2021 11:08:26
I just need the energy to be related to gravity for my model to workYou don't have a model. You have a conjecture that doesn't line up with physics. Saying kinetic energy is somehow a repulsive force from a massive object is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/08/2021 11:46:21
You don't have a model. You have a conjecture that doesn't line up with physics.
My model is a harmonic oscillator. Isn't it physics?
Saying kinetic energy is somehow a repulsive force from a massive object is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.
Didn't you see what I wrote?
Ok energy is not repulsive.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/08/2021 12:54:09
Saying kinetic energy is somehow a repulsive force from a massive object is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.
At the earlier stage of the development of the general theory of relativity (years 1913-1916) Einstein supposed that the energy of matter and the energy of gravitational field are equivalent as a source of gravitational field and included the gravitational energy in the right part of his equations. Later, after discussions with Schr¨odinger and other scientists about the non-tensor and non-local nature of the energy-impulse of the gravitational field, Einstein changed his mind. Since 1917 he never included the gravitational energy in the right part of his equations and pointed out that a single source of gravitational field is the energy-impulse tensor of ordinary matter and electromagnetic field: ‘Tik represents the energy which generates the gravitational field, but is itself of non-gravitational character, as for example the energy of the electromagnetic field, of the density of ponderable matter etc’ (Einstein 1953). This Einstein’s point of view was shared by Schrödinger (1955), Eddington (1975) and Chandrasekhar (1983). In addition, Schrödinger (1955) pointed out that the total mass of the Universe can change when the Universe expands. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541)
Stress–energy tensor
This density and flux of energy and momentum are the sources of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg)
Post by: Kartazion on 10/08/2021 01:18:44
Look, one more link:
The gravitational binding energy of a system is the minimum energy which must be added to it in order for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state. A gravitationally bound system has a lower (i.e., more negative) gravitational potential energy than the sum of the energies of its parts when these are completely separated—this is what keeps the system aggregated in accordance with the minimum total potential energy principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy
I wish to know your analysis and explanation to what you have declared, to see how you do physics:
... The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s. If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface. One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.
Why if the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface?
Post by: Kartazion on 11/08/2021 04:30:10
Are there any people among you who understand this paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295
If so, here is the quick and symoptic conclusion of my model of singularity avoidance in relation to the Higgs field.
Revision of the potential energy of the Higgs field in relation to singularity avoidance, and correction of the metastability of the true / false vacuum.
The kinetics of the particle make it possible to avoid the singularity through the Higgs field. The Higgs field corresponds to the path taken by the particle. In other words, the Higgs field corresponds to the path taken by the particle thanks to the kinetic energy and makes it possible to avoid the singularity.
If the kinetic energy of the particle is sufficient and if the range of the energy condition allows to pass the potential barrier the singularity avoidance occurs, but during the attenuation of the kinetics of the particle, this causes by the quantity of lower energy to fall towards the singularity and to reach the true vacuum.
In conclusion, the metastability of the vacuum is shifted and is represented in three parts. The first corresponds to the false vacuum of the Higgs field at the level of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, follows in two the true vacuum of the Higgs field which is in fact the Zero Point Energy and is therefore not the true vacuum since in three we have the true absolute vacuum which corresponds to the total collapse.
Without any kinetic energy the contour of the potential barrier corresponds to the path of the orbit of the particle in Zero Point Energy in relation to its inertia.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs.png)
References:
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5226
@Colin2B @Eternal Student thank you for your answers.
I do have an account on arXiv. But we must get an endorsement from another user to submit an article to category physics. Can any of you sponsor me? I just wish to begin with publishing the basis of the gravitational oscillator and not the whole theory that I have published here. Publish the gravitational oscillator adding to singularity avoidance would be great but more complicated to be accepted.
Regards.
Post by: Kartazion on 12/08/2021 19:25:22
... The ISS is moving at about 7.7 km/s. If the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface. One way to visualize this is to think of the ISS (or ANYTHING orbiting) as a body that constantly falling towards the earth but its speed makes it miss the earth.
Why if the speed of the ISS was stopped it would fall straight down to the earths surface?
The answer is simple. It is inertia through angular kinetic energy.
Regards
Post by: Origin on 12/08/2021 19:55:38
The answer is simple. It is inertia through angular kinetic energy.I suppose you keep trying to bring in kinetic energy because you think supports your idea. The bit I don't like is the part about a repulsive force from a mass, like a star. That notion has nothing to do with KE. The orbital distance depends on the velocity not the KE. In other words the ISS or a bolt would have the same orbital radius if their velocities were the same.
Post by: Kartazion on 12/08/2021 20:15:46
Post by: Origin on 12/08/2021 20:25:39
inertiadensity
Post by: Origin on 12/08/2021 22:11:34
Hello all.Seriously? You marked your own post, in your own thread, as the best answer? ::)
That's rather pathetic...
Post by: Kartazion on 13/08/2021 18:52:21
I suppose you keep trying to bring in kinetic energy because you think supports your idea.
No, I don't think it. That's what physics says. The specific orbital energy (or vis-viva energy) of two orbiting bodies is the constant sum of their mutual potential energy and their total kinetic energy, divided by the reduced mass.
The bit I don't like is the part about a repulsive force from a mass, like a star.
Yes it's because you do not know your subject well.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0001011 Attractive and Repulsive Gravity
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1379 Repulsive gravity model for dark energy
[3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541 A repulsive force in the Einstein theory
The orbital distance depends on the velocity not the KE.
Yes the orbital distance does not depend on KE.
Seriously? You marked your own post, in your own thread, as the best answer? ::)
That's rather pathetic...
Amen.
Post by: Kartazion on 14/08/2021 07:05:41
The idea now is that the inertia of an orbiting body would correspond to the movement of its mass occurring by the force of gravity, but by an avoidance of the gravitational singularity thanks to the barrier of potential. In other words the particle slides along the barrier of potential and corresponds to the motion of inertia following the orbit in relation to the object with the greatest gravity at the center of the system. Indeed in the conventional illustration, the orbit is the closed curve representing the trajectory that a celestial object draws under the effect of gravitation and inertial forces. It should therefore be remembered that the own deformation by sinking of the celestial object in the curvature of spacetime creates all around it a barrier of energy potential from higher edges.
In reality for inertia to work, it would seem that the universe turns on itself and is rotational.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-orbit.png)
Post by: Origin on 14/08/2021 12:25:00
Yes it's because you do not know your subject well.I know the subject well enough to see that your conjecture that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because there is both an attractive force and a repulsive force from the sun is pure bullocks.
Post by: Kartazion on 14/08/2021 16:59:57
I know the subject well enough to see that your conjecture that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because there is both an attractive force and a repulsive force from the sun is pure bullocks
Are you now saying that gravity is not used in the functioning of the solar system?
Post by: Kartazion on 16/08/2021 02:07:18
Hello all.
Are there any people among you who understand this paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295
If so, here is the quick and symoptic conclusion of my model of singularity avoidance in relation to the Higgs field.
Revision of the potential energy of the Higgs field in relation to singularity avoidance, and correction of the metastability of the true / false vacuum.
The kinetics of the particle make it possible to avoid the singularity through the Higgs field. The Higgs field corresponds to the path taken by the particle. In other words, the Higgs field corresponds to the path taken by the particle thanks to the kinetic energy and makes it possible to avoid the singularity.
If the kinetic energy of the particle is sufficient and if the range of the energy condition allows to pass the potential barrier the singularity avoidance occurs, but during the attenuation of the kinetics of the particle, this causes by the quantity of lower energy to fall towards the singularity and to reach the true vacuum.
In conclusion, the metastability of the vacuum is shifted and is represented in three parts. The first corresponds to the false vacuum of the Higgs field at the level of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, follows in two the true vacuum of the Higgs field which is in fact the Zero Point Energy and is therefore not the true vacuum since in three we have the true absolute vacuum which corresponds to the total collapse.
Without any kinetic energy the contour of the potential barrier corresponds to the path of the orbit of the particle in Zero Point Energy in relation to its inertia.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs.png)
References:
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5226@Colin2B @Eternal Student thank you for your answers.
I do have an account on arXiv. But we must get an endorsement from another user to submit an article to category physics. Can any of you sponsor me? I just wish to begin with publishing the basis of the gravitational oscillator and not the whole theory that I have published here. Publish the gravitational oscillator adding to singularity avoidance would be great but more complicated to be accepted.
Regards.
I use the application of conventional physics. Namely the kinetic energy of the particle for the harmonic or anharmonic oscillator, and inertia to simulate the orbiting motion of the particle or mass around a more massive object. According to the oscillator model that I propose, the orbit(s) is located at approximately at x=0 in the potential well of the oscillator, and corresponds to the Zero Point Energy. The initial Zero Point Energy disturbance (ZPE) corresponds to the movement of the particle located in the false vacuum in orbit around the gravitational singularity.
The idea now is that the inertia of an orbiting body would correspond to the movement of its mass occurring by the force of gravity, but by an avoidance of the gravitational singularity thanks to the barrier of potential. In other words the particle slides along the barrier of potential and corresponds to the motion of inertia following the orbit in relation to the object with the greatest gravity at the center of the system. Indeed in the conventional illustration, the orbit is the closed curve representing the trajectory that a celestial object draws under the effect of gravitation and inertial forces. It should therefore be remembered that the own deformation by sinking of the celestial object in the curvature of spacetime creates all around it a barrier of energy potential from higher edges.
In reality for inertia to work, it would seem that the universe turns on itself and is rotational.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-orbit.png)
The Higgs field and potential are also used well to be able to represent the metastability of the universe, as well as the quantum particle. Being able to make the link between GR and QM through the gravitational oscillator by explaining the Higgs mechanism becomes very interesting, even important. If we were to make the jump of a massive object over the potential barrier and the gravitational singularity, then we would draw through the particle, the curve of the Higgs field. It is therefore understood that in order to do this, the kinetic energy must be accordingly. We would therefore tend to believe that for a quantum particle that the step of crossing a black hole would become easier. I guess that its avoidance is related to the electromagnetic force.
In a more speculative definition and given our knowledge of the gravitational sigularity followed by the time dilation, we could associate the center of the earth as such. Indeed for the quantum particle it becomes easier to imagine the avoidance of the singularity at the level of the terrestrial core through the gravitational oscillator.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
Post by: Kartazion on 16/08/2021 02:20:25
Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity.
Post by: Kartazion on 17/08/2021 03:38:45
Black holes and Higgs stability We study the effect of primordial black holes on the classical rate of nucleation of AdS regions within the standard electroweak vacuum. We find that the energy barrier for transitions to the new vacuum, which characterizes the exponential suppression of the nucleation rate, can be reduced significantly in the black-hole background. A precise analysis is required in order to determine whether the the existence of primordial black holes is compatible with the form of the Higgs potential at high temperature or density in the Standard Model or its extensions. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04018
Unification of gravity and the harmonic oscillator on a quantum black hole horizon II: Perturbative particle scattering and Feynman amplitudes n Article I, a harmonic-oscillator model of a universe of n quarks is infinitesimally modified to eliminate the background reference frame. As a result, quark trajectories exhibit the unification of gravity and the harmonic oscillator near the horizon of a quantum black hole, a region that is approximately flat in space-time. Constituent quarks are confined to composite particles by cluster decomposition rather than a binding force. Here, the composite-particles are input for a perturbation model of particle-exchange interactions. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307136
Gravitational and harmonic oscillator potentials on surfaces of revolution In this paper, we consider the motion of a particle on a surface of revolution under the influence of a central force field. We prove that there are at most two analytic central potentials for which all the bounded, nonsingular orbits are closed and that there are exactly two on some surfaces with constant Gaussian curvature. The two potentials leading to closed orbits are suitable generalizations of the gravitational and harmonic oscillator potential. We also show that there could be surfaces admitting only one potential that leads to closed orbits. In this case, the potential is a generalized harmonic oscillator. In the special case of surfaces of revolution with constant Gaussian curvature, we prove a generalization of the well-known Bertrand theorem. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3930
Post by: Origin on 17/08/2021 12:33:04
I know the subject well enough to see that your conjecture that the earth stays in orbit around the sun because there is both an attractive force and a repulsive force from the sun is pure bullocks.
Are you now saying that gravity is not used in the functioning of the solar system?No, I am saying your ignorant misrepresentation of gravity has nothing to do with the functioning of the solar system.
Post by: Kartazion on 17/08/2021 15:25:25
No, I am saying your ignorant misrepresentation of gravity has nothing to do with the functioning of the solar system.
How Do Objects Stay in Orbit?
An object in motion will stay in motion unless something pushes or pulls on it. This statement is called Newton's first law of motion. Without gravity, an Earth-orbiting satellite would go off into space along a straight line. With gravity, it is pulled back toward Earth. A constant tug-of-war takes place between the satellite's tendency to move in a straight line, or momentum, and the tug of gravity pulling the satellite back. https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
Post by: Kartazion on 17/08/2021 15:44:56
No, I am saying your ignorant misrepresentation of gravity has nothing to do with the functioning of the solar system.
Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun.
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/
So?
Post by: Origin on 17/08/2021 22:42:58
Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun.So the predictions using the current theories of gravity match observations. Your ideas on gravity do not and are clearly wrong.
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/
So?
One of the more absurd claims by you is this:
"It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy. "
There is no 'push back' by a black hole or any other massive object. This is pure and simple fantasy.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/08/2021 00:50:47
So the predictions using the current theories of gravity match observations.Predictions a bit like your hundreds of Google examples:
Google this phrase: "tunnel through earth simple harmonic motion". You'll get hundreds of examples.
... Your ideas on gravity do not and are clearly wrong.My ideas and those of others:
If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit simple harmonic motion. ...
One of the more absurd claims by you is this:
"It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy. "
There is no 'push back' by a black hole or any other massive object. This is pure and simple fantasy.
Fantasy? Absurd? "Fountain I will never drink your water"
Research Shows Black Holes Push Away Their Dinners https://earthsky.org/space/stellar-mass-black-holes-gorge-winds-push/
New research shows the first evidence of strong winds around black holes throughout bright outburst events when a black hole rapidly consumes mass. https://www.ualberta.ca/science/news/2018/january/black-hole-winds-interfere-with-mealtimes.html
Post by: Kartazion on 28/08/2021 05:23:48
Are there any people among you who understand this paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295
Here is an excerpt from the paper in question:
Einstein gravitation is known to give rise to the formation of singularities at high densities unless the dominant energy condition is made invalid by the occurrence of new physics: we show that such a new physics can be the already present Higgs sector of the standard model of particle physics.
In 2016, with the detection of the gravitational waves, we have witnessed the last and most impressive experimental confirmation of Einstein gravity; in 2012, with the discovery of the Higgs scalar, we have had the final and most important experimental confirmation of the validity of the standard model of particle physics. But despite all the success that the two theories have separately, never the less they still suffer the lack of a combined framework. Even worse is that, theoretically, Einstein gravitation appears to be affected by the Penrose-Hawking theorem, stating that if the dominant energy condition holds then the high density gravitationally-induced formation of singularities is inevitable; in turn this means that the avoidance of singularity formation due to gravity can be done only by invalidating the condition on the energy, and thus what we would have to do would be to modify the structure of the energy tensor by allowing different contributions of matter distribution: ...
I conclude for the Higgs field; The condition of energy described in the paper, is equal to 'Higgs's energy' (potential and kinetic). Indeed the Higgs field is plot at x=0 around the false vacuum and the zone ZPE and avoid the singularity (gravitational attraction) thanks to the energy.
Official description:
The first term is the kinetic energy of the field. The second term is the extra potential energy when the field varies from point to point. The third term is the potential energy when the field has any given magnitude.
Gauge invariance means that certain transformations of the gauge field do not change the energy at all. If an arbitrary gradient is added to A, the energy of the field is exactly the same. This makes it difficult to add a mass term, because a mass term tends to push the field toward the value zero.
My question is now, are there any of you who work with the Penrose-Hawking theorem?
Regards
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 28/08/2021 17:56:58
Hello.
1 - Constitution of the gravitational oscillator:
This linear oscillator uses a particle of mass m oscillating vertically along the vector G of gravity. The oscillation has two phases. The first is the phase of the fall of the particle with the force G, and the second is the reverse phase which corresponds to the vertical ejection of the particle given by a pulse of energy E.
Rising oscillation of the particle = E
Descending oscillation of the particle = G.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator.png)
Gravity is energy, but inverse to E for our case:
E - G = 0
Momentum of the particle in the oscillator:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-pmv.png)
Speed and acceleration of the particle according to the constant g:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-v.png)
2 - Heisenberg uncertainty principle
The integration of the constant g and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-incertitude.png)
Momentum k given to the particle after the pulse:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-heisenberg.png)
Coherent states of the oscillator and the uncertainty principle:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-coherent-states.png)
3 - Electron and speed of light:
The quantum gravity called z would then make the particle fall from the surface, to then reappear thanks to the energy. As much the constant g has an acceleration on a relativistic object, then z would be a constant accelerating the quantum particle to reach the speed of light.
We can determine the amount of energy it would take to move the electron to c-1:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-electon.png)
Quantum gravitational potential energy of the electron and constant z:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-potential.png)
Part II
Substitution of the mechanical stress of impact and rebound caused by the particle during its fall, by a continuity of the kinetic energy of the particle towards the antimatter.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.
Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.
I haven't boiled down even a quarter of this post a d already it's ill defined. You said gravity is energy.
Gravity isn't even a force and energy in the common sense is a force exchange carrier. Gravity is actually a pseudoforce from the first principles of relativity. Somy immediate question would be, how is gravity an energy? And if you think gravitons exist as an argument for it, well good luck on that one. The field theorists didn't even understand what gravity was in GR, they went all crazy and tried to create a quantum field for it in a desperate attempt to unify physics. We now know these early attempts were not only fruitless, but riddled wotj divergences (aka. Singularities) and it's commonplace nowto believe gravity is manifestly incapable of being quantized.
The only way I could comprehend gravity related to energy is by saying all particles contribute to the curvature of spacetime. The energy required to "cause" the effects of curvature/gravity is encoded in the stress energy tensor. Still to me, this is different to saying gravity "is" energy. Gravity is the effect of a particle of any gravitating mass warping spacetime around it. I was grappling a theory a while back that maybe curvature came first and produced energy, hence they're different animals.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 28/08/2021 18:05:09
Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the sun.So the predictions using the current theories of gravity match observations. Your ideas on gravity do not and are clearly wrong.
Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/
So?
One of the more absurd claims by you is this:
"It is said that black holes swallow matter. There would then be as much matter to swallow as to push back to maintain the size of the galaxy. "
There is no 'push back' by a black hole or any other massive object. This is pure and simple fantasy.
I'm not saying the OP has a good understanding of gravity, but I must correct you. I don't know if it is just the definition of "push back," ugh, but supermassive black holes rarely get to eat much because they to eject most of the matter by a sling shot effect. It's one of those surprising things to learn. I was taught this little factoid from an astrophysicist and it was a bit of a surprise because we tend to think anything that comes close will eventually fall in.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 28/08/2021 18:06:58
Post by: Kartazion on 28/08/2021 22:49:25
Somy immediate question would be, how is gravity an energy?
I guess the Stress–energy tensor
At the earlier stage of the development of the general theory of relativity (years 1913-1916) Einstein supposed that the energy of matter and the energy of gravitational field are equivalent as a source of gravitational field and included the gravitational energy in the right part of his equations. Later, after discussions with Schr¨odinger and other scientists about the non-tensor and non-local nature of the energy-impulse of the gravitational field, Einstein changed his mind. Since 1917 he never included the gravitational energy in the right part of his equations and pointed out that a single source of gravitational field is the energy-impulse tensor of ordinary matter and electromagnetic field: ‘Tik represents the energy which generates the gravitational field, but is itself of non-gravitational character, as for example the energy of the electromagnetic field, of the density of ponderable matter etc’ (Einstein 1953). This Einstein’s point of view was shared by Schrödinger (1955), Eddington (1975) and Chandrasekhar (1983). In addition, Schrödinger (1955) pointed out that the total mass of the Universe can change when the Universe expands. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01541)
Stress–energy tensor
This density and flux of energy and momentum are the sources of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg)
I'm not saying the OP has a good understanding of gravity, but I must correct you. I don't know if it is just the definition of "push back," ugh, but supermassive black holes rarely get to eat much because they to eject most of the matter by a sling shot effect. It's one of those surprising things to learn. I was taught this little factoid from an astrophysicist and it was a bit of a surprise because we tend to think anything that comes close will eventually fall in.
Yes I'm talking about 'pushing back' the matter. You, you talk about ejection. It is the role of energy to 'push back' matter from gravity of supermassive black holes. You are correct on that point. The sling shot effect keeps stars away from the supermassive black hole and orbits around it. As well as the accretion disk which uses this same principle, as well as the rings of Saturn. In one way it's gravity vs energy.
Plus the ejection of matter from a rapidly spinning supermassive black hole has nothing to do with regulating matter in a typical spiral galaxy. Just thought I'd get that in there as well.
Discovery of a Relationship between Spiral Arm Morphology and Supermassive Black Hole Mass in Disk Galaxies https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1918007_Discovery_of_a_Relationship_between_Spiral_Arm_Morphology_and_Supermassive_Black_Hole_Mass_in_Disk_Galaxies
Since a great number of galaxies are spiral in shape and there is a black hole in the middle of them, is the shape of the galaxy influenced by the “sucking” power of the black hole, like water spiraling into the drain of the bathtub? https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/11/since-a-great-number-of-galaxies-are-spiral-in-shape-and-there-is-a-black-hole-in-the-middle-of-them-is-the-shape-of-the-galaxy-influenced-by-the-sucking-power-of-the-black-hole-like-water-spiraling-into-the-drain-of-the-bathtub
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 29/08/2021 00:34:31
Post by: Kartazion on 29/08/2021 05:29:34
As far as stress energy is concerned, I suppose you could say that. It's just that it refers to all types of fluctuations and gravity is the effect of this in the form of curvature.
Yes. It's just that it refers to all types of energy fluctuations and gravity, and is the effect of this in the form of curvature.
This is valid for a macroscopic mass at rest and in orbit by inertial movement. At rest because if this mass were submissive to an oscillation, then it would be subject to kinetic energy. It is difficult to be able to visualize the difference which I carry between a mass at rest in inertial movement in the false vacuum in ZPE and a mass at work by kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of mass uses the same direction as the gravity vector, unlike the resting mass which it orbits.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-orbit.png)
The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems are the culmination of work carried out in general relativity by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The aim of this work was to determine under what condition the formation of a hole black or a gravitational singularity is inescapable.
Indeed for Higgs field, it interprets by its great gravitational potential energy, a kind of curvature opposed to the singularity. This posibility is due to the avoidance of singularity, and not to its inescapable of collapse. This is what it makes characteristic* of the Higgs mechanism. In the case of a quantum particle, the gravitational potential energy of the Higgs field integrates into the particle an optimum or maximum mass due to this singularity avoidance
*singularity avoidance = enormous potential energy = Higgs mechanism
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 29/08/2021 21:59:16
The energy condition is that of Higgs, because its large mass can be represented by large energy during avoiding singularity. Maybe a adaptation of the energy tensor must be established according to the Higgs mechanism.
Post by: Origin on 29/08/2021 22:13:13
I'm not saying the OP has a good understanding of gravity, but I must correct you.What are you correcting me about? I am saying there is no repulsive force of gravity, which is what the OP thinks. Do you agree with him?
Post by: Kartazion on 29/08/2021 22:27:25
Repulsive gravity model for dark energy https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1379
Post by: Origin on 29/08/2021 23:45:26
The dark energy due to expansion is.So let me say again there is no repulsive force from the sun keeping the planets in orbit. If you would read the orbital mechanics links I supplied, you would see that.
Repulsive gravity model for dark energy https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1379
Post by: Kartazion on 31/08/2021 06:07:41
So let me say again there is no repulsive force from the sun keeping the planets in orbit. If you would read the orbital mechanics links I supplied, you would see that.
Indeed I made a mistake in saying that. However, there is one detail which does not compromise the principle of the gravitational oscillator.
By the way the gravitational oscillator that I am describing, isn't it bivector?
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
Google this phrase: "tunnel through earth simple harmonic motion". You'll get hundreds of examples.
This gives for G and E --> gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0
Isn't it bivectors?
Thanks.
Post by: Origin on 31/08/2021 12:31:04
This gives for G and E --> gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0
Isn't it bivectors?
No, energy is not a vector, it is a scalar quantity.
G is not the symbol for gravitational potential energy, PE is the right symbol. E is not the symbol for kinetic energy, KE is the right symbol.
Post by: Kartazion on 31/08/2021 19:38:31
Post by: Origin on 02/09/2021 18:08:06
Thanks for the detail.Your welcome. Details are vital when trying to communicate scientific ideas.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/10/2021 07:48:49
So let me say again there is no repulsive force from the sun keeping the planets in orbit. If you would read the orbital mechanics links I supplied, you would see that.
Analysis of repulsive central universal force field on solar and galactic dynamics (https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2019-0041)
Universal repulsive force produces circular orbital shape of the planetary orbit in the absence of other effects when the orbit is perpendicular to the radial direction of the universal force. Figure 1 (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/phys-2019-0041/html#j_phys-2019-0041_fig_001) shows the force acting on a celestial system, like our solar system, with an orbital plane perpendicular to the universal radial direction (tangential to a spherical shell concentric with the center of the universe).
Central universal force field to explain solar orbital radial acceleration and other universal phenomena - arXiv (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701330.pdf)
Fig.1. Repulsive force acting on a celestial system with a plane perpendicular to the universal radial direction.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/11/2021 06:00:38
Post by: Origin on 02/11/2021 11:44:20
Post by: Kartazion on 02/11/2021 12:23:51
In case you've forgotten, there is no repulsive force from the sun keeping the planets in orbit. If you would read the orbital mechanics links I supplied, you would see that.
Now I know that the potential barrier due to the deformation of the space-time grid which plays a role. In fact, the object which orbits by inertia slides along this potential energy barrier. For the same reason that a geostationary object remains at a distance is due to the potential barrier produced by the defonrmation of the space-time grid.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-orbit.png)
Post by: Origin on 02/11/2021 13:01:09
Now I know that the potential barrier due to the deformation of the space-time grid which plays a role. In fact, the object which orbits by inertia slides along this potential energy barrier. For the same reason that a geostationary object remains at a distance is due to the potential barrier produced by the defonrmation of the space-time grid.That is just pseudoscience gibberish. Orbital mechanics clearly gives answers that are in complete agreement with observations. If you think you have a unique method that gives the correct answer, then by all means show it.
Using your method calculate the velocity and altitude of a geostationary satellite.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 07:06:06
So...
I use this distortion and represent potential edges in energy (mass conversion).
Quite simply. It is obvious and straightforward.
Post by: Origin on 03/11/2021 13:37:40
I use this distortion and represent potential edges in energy (mass conversion).Great! Please use your simple, obvious and straight forward method to calculate the velocity and altitude of a geostationary satellite.
Quite simply. It is obvious and straightforward.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 14:15:09
I am simply saying that by deforming the space-time curvature, create a border which retains the massive object in its envelope expressed in energy of gravitational potential.
In fact nothing new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_potential
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Earth-moon-gravitational-potential.svg)
Post by: Origin on 03/11/2021 16:01:20
The calculations are the same, and do not change.You then said:
I am simply saying that by deforming the space-time curvature, create a border which retains the massive object in its envelope expressed in energy of gravitational potential.This appears to be a string of sciency sounding words that don't convey any meaning, but let's try to see if we can glean anything from this statement.
1. You are saying an orbit can be calculated using the 'space time curvature' and the 'energy of gravitational potential'.
2. You stated, "The calculations are the same, and do not change". In other words #1 must reduce to the current orbital mechanics equations.
Using normal orbital mechanics:
The velocity of an object in a circular orbit is found by the following equation:
The radius of the orbiting body can be found by the following equation:
In your statement #1, no where do I see a velocity or and acceleration due to gravity.
Please show how your statement: deforming the space-time curvature, create a border which retains the massive object in its envelope expressed in energy of gravitational potential reduces to the equations for the orbital velocity and orbital radius.
Thanks.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 16:20:27
Please show how your statement: deforming the space-time curvature, create a border which retains the massive object in its envelope expressed in energy of gravitational potential reduces to the equations for the orbital velocity and orbital radius.
Gravitational potential well of an increasing mass where (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ff575ad68306682f85a53cfbcf348879cca1d25a)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Mass_potential_well_increasing_mass.gif)
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 16:30:47
Post by: Origin on 03/11/2021 17:27:50
OK, let's keep going we you are making some headway!
Now you need to bring in your statement about a 'border', an 'envelope' and spacetime curvature to give the equations for the distance and velocity of an orbiting body.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 17:55:49
Now you need to bring in your statement about a 'border', an 'envelope' and spacetime curvature to give the equations for the distance and velocity of an orbiting body.
With the effective potential? (also known as effective potential energy) combines multiple, perhaps opposing, effects into a single potential. In its basic form, it is the sum of the 'opposing' centrifugal potential energy with the potential energy of a dynamical system. It may be used to determine the orbits of planets (both Newtonian and relativistic) and to perform semi-classical atomic calculations, and often allows problems to be reduced to fewer dimensions.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/a0e06208306b9d060643a168b90480061c32c4bb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_potential
Post by: Origin on 03/11/2021 18:04:48
With the effective potential? (also known as effective potential energy) combines multiple, perhaps opposing, effects into a single potential. In its basic form, it is the sum of the 'opposing' centrifugal potential energy with the potential energy of a dynamical system. It may be used to determine the orbits of planets (both Newtonian and relativistic) and to perform semi-classical atomic calculations, and often allows problems to be reduced to fewer dimensions.This is the second time you have simply cut and pasted from wiki, but you still have not shown how your statement can reduce to the equations for the velocity and the radius of an orbiting body.
On the plus side it seems you are no longer claiming there is a repulsive force from a massive body.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 18:43:29
... but you still have not shown how your statement can reduce to the equations for the velocity and the radius of an orbiting body.
I do not understand the question. I use the magnitude of the value of the potential to claim therein a barrier of energy of potential. As a result, the object at a sufficient distance from the earth, keep by shape memory the position at the distance of r whether it is moving or not.
Clearly, if the object does not fall, it is because it is retained by this barrier of potential. Or I ask you by what mechanism and physical explanation is it that the satellites do not fall on earth? If the centrifugal force would be the cause, then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?
Why doesn't the earth crash into the sun?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/11/2021 18:46:14
then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?We can explain it with science.
Have you tried that option?
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 19:14:53
then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?...
...
@Bored chemist this was how to explain it other than the potential energy barrier produced by the deformation of the potential field due to gravity. It's nice to cut the sentence out of context
Post by: Zer0 on 03/11/2021 19:30:06
🙂
Amusing OP!
👍
I found the Last Image, in Reply #25 quite Interesting.
Mandelbrot Set?
Ps - i voted for the 3rd option, im a layman science enthusiast.
✌️
Post by: Origin on 03/11/2021 21:06:46
I do not understand the question.It seems like you are dodging the question.
I use the magnitude of the value of the potential to claim therein a barrier of energy of potential. As a result, the object at a sufficient distance from the earth, keep by shape memory the position at the distance of r whether it is moving or not.Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Please just show how you calculate the orbital distance and the velocity of a satellite.
Clearly, if the object does not fall, it is because it is retained by this barrier of potential.No this is wrong no barrier is needed. This has been explained to you already. Orbital mechanics are all that is needed. If you know how far away the satellite is from a given mass you can calculate the velocity of the satellite. It doesn't seem like you are able to calculate anything from your statements. It just seems like arm waving and no science.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/11/2021 21:55:43
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs-potential.png)
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2021 13:21:53
It didn't matter how much of your nonsense I clipped or quoted; it's still nonsense.then how to explain the maintenance of the distance of the earth from the sun, if the sun does not turn on itself?...
...
@Bored chemist this was how to explain it other than the potential energy barrier produced by the deformation of the potential field due to gravity. It's nice to cut the sentence out of context
My reply is still valid; we can address the question you asked by using science.
Orbital mechanics- the stuff learned as a teenager- works just fine.
On the other hand, any sensible form for gravitational potential apart from an inverse square law gives you unstable orbits.
Why do you reject this obvious explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Post by: Zer0 on 04/11/2021 18:39:45
I should have presented the Exact image i was referring to in Reply #25.
Yes H!
Correct, as always!
👍
The Logistics Map.
(Fractals)
I had watched a video on the topic by Veritasium on Utube.
But He somehow flipped the image over, like rotated it, top spinned and then like connected it...or rather showed it to be Consistent & part of a Mandelbrot Set.
(Sorry, I'm unable to explain/express it clearly due to my limited understanding, please do watch the video once.)
Copyrights & Credits - Veritasium Channel/YouTube.
Anyways, to be Honest...what amuses me in the image, is that every time i come across it, i always somehow delusionally connect it with the Image/Map/Diagram of the Universe.
(Like from a singularity, to division & expansion, leading towards complete chaos)
Ps - Any of you remember that User by the nickname " pasala " ?
Trying to explain their own version/model of Gravity...with constant references to elevators & rockets.
That OP/thread was Rightfully stopped.
But i Must say, that User(pasala) was Commendable.
They perhaps Never tried to jump the Ban, or force their viewpoints again.
They portrayed Integrity & Self Respect.
👍
Post by: Kartazion on 07/11/2021 00:45:41
Nothing to do with Mandlebrot set, which is a map of complex numbers with a certain property.
Wrong.
Verhulst-Mandelbrot-Bifurcation do it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#/media/File:Verhulst-Mandelbrot-Bifurcation.jpg
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Verhulst-Mandelbrot-Bifurcation.jpg)
It didn't matter how much of your nonsense I clipped or quoted; it's still nonsense.
My mistakes and my nonsense do not prevent the proper functioning of my gravitational oscillator. I have plenty of time to be able to correct it and have it published.
My reply is still valid; we can address the question you asked by using science.
Orbital mechanics- the stuff learned as a teenager- works just fine.
So why doesn't the moon collapse on earth? By what mechanism is it retained? Must admit that there is a barrier to something that holds it back ...
But my quest remains. Please, how does the moon stay at a distance without collapsing to earth with an answer for everyone?
Why do you reject this obvious explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Who tells you that I reject it?
1 - I do not reject the idea of the functioning in force. And 2 the calculations are the same and do not change. I am not inventing anything new. I'm just making the point of a gravitational potential energy barrier. 3 - With the link you present, you are not showing why and by what mechanism the moon stays away from the earth.
I should have presented the Exact image i was referring to in Reply #25.
Wikipedia would have been enough.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:LogisticMap_BifurcationDiagram.png
But He somehow flipped the image over, like rotated it, top spinned and then like connected it...or rather showed it to be Consistent & part of a Mandelbrot Set.
Yes exactly. In addition, I turned it to be able to make the link between the oscillators potential energy wells cascaded and the logistic-bifurcation.
Post by: Origin on 07/11/2021 04:28:00
So why doesn't the moon collapse on earth?Because of its tangential velocity relative to earth.
By what mechanism is it retained?See above.
Must admit that there is a barrier to something that holds it backWe must admit you don't know what you are talking about.
But my quest remains. Please, how does the moon stay at a distance without collapsing to earth with an answer for everyone?See the answer to the first question.
Who tells you that I reject it?You do.
I am not inventing anything new. I'm just making the point of a gravitational potential energy barrier.That is pseudoscience garbage. There is no repulsive force from the earth on the moon to keep it in orbit. You are simply confused.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/11/2021 00:29:13
Because of its tangential velocity relative to earth.Tangential velocity does not explain the physical mechanism of why gravity is no longer exerted. It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
So if acceleration turns it into gravity (in calculations), then why (by what mechanism) does your velocity prevent gravitational collapse?
See above.
See the answer to the first question.There is no point in cutting my single question to be able to make the same answer three times. It's ridiculous.
We must admit you don't know what you are talking about.This implies that I am too stupid. But you speak in the first-person plural. So you also speak for others and it's daring.
You do.You tell nonsense. Please show me how and where.
That is pseudoscience garbage. There is no repulsive force from the earth on the moon to keep it in orbit. You are simply confused.I did not speak of repulsive force but just a barrier. You are confused. Simply.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/11/2021 01:02:51
Spoiler: show
Here is the translation of google translate:
Quote
A potential barrier is a high level of energy that a mechanical object must temporarily possess in order to follow a trajectory along which overall less energy is required, the part beyond the barrier being impossible for it if it does not. not reach that level.
Case of gravity
Let be an object of mass m moving on a curve located in a vertical plane. Gravity is g. We have dealt with the case of potential cuvettes (cf. potential well) and we have introduced the “turning points” such that mgH (s) = E.
In the case of a potential barrier,
either the particle has an energy mgH °> mg Hmax, and the particle crosses the barrier and is found with a probability = 100% on the other side: T = 1.
either the particle does not have sufficient energy and it is reflected by the barrier: R = 1.
An innocuous remark by Corinne (1757?), Taken up by Appell (CRAS 1878), involves the following symmetry: if we change g to - g, the basin is transformed into a barrier. But if we change t in an imaginary time it, then we find the solution of the barrier as an analytical extension of the solution for the cuvette.
The obvious example is that of the bridge-shaped cycloid, therefore symmetrical to the isochronous Huygens cup-cycloid: instead of finding solutions in sin t and cos t, we will find solutions in sh t and ch t.
Appell made the same remark for the case of the simple pendulum: he then found the double periodicity of sn z, cn z and dn z, which Jacobi (and partially Abel) had found long before.
This remark by Corinne will serve Wick to understand Gamow's “semi-classical” tunnel effect and very quickly find the famous tunnel transmission laws, so useful in radioactivity, in thermoelectric effect, in thermonuclear fusion, in spintronics, in quantum chemistry. : this effect of the particle-wave will be due to the evanescence of its action S (E).
Post by: Origin on 08/11/2021 04:09:27
Tangential velocity does not explain the physical mechanism of why gravity is no longer exerted.Nonsensical statement.
It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity.It doesn't say that.
So if acceleration turns it into gravityNonsense.
If you would just read about orbital mechanics you would see that your ignorant pseudoscience is trying explain something that is already understood. This is something that has been understood for 400 years!
Post by: Kartazion on 08/11/2021 06:46:28
It doesn't say that.Ignorant. The equivalence principle in theory of general relativity says that well.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent
Nonsense.Even since the relativity of Einstein? Well done. I understand why you are unable to make the link between GR and QM. The OP must try to make this link.
If you would just read about orbital mechanics you would see that your ignorant pseudoscience is trying explain something that is already understood. This is something that has been understood for 400 years!
Post by: Origin on 08/11/2021 12:50:43
Ignorant. The equivalence principle in theory of general relativity says that well.The equivalency principle doesn't state this:
"It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity."
Even since the relativity of Einstein? Well done. I understand why you are unable to make the link between GR and QM. The OP must try to make this link.Stop waving your arms around and learn some physics.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/11/2021 00:12:58
The equivalency principle doesn't state this:Now, Mr. is playing on words without development and argued. I find the insistence of your rebuttals weird. It's suspicious*.
"It reminds me that Einstein equivalence principle said that acceleration makes us subject to gravity."
With the equivalence principle and in the small regions of space time, you cannot tell the difference between upward acceleration and downward gravity.
* You will tell me, explain the Higgs field as I explain it (with a level 101) can scare the compared to the total confusion of the interpretation of the QM with a endless list of formulas, while the the explanation of the universe remains very simple and you already know it.
... For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs-potential.png)
Post by: Origin on 09/11/2021 12:30:01
With the equivalence principle and in the small regions of space time, you cannot tell the difference between upward acceleration and downward gravity.That is a reasonable definition of the equivalency principle.
Now, Mr. is playing on wordsPlaying with words? No, you are the one saying absurd things like, "So if acceleration turns it into gravity"!
You will tell me, explain the Higgs field as I explain it (with a level 101) can scare the compared to the total confusion of the interpretation of the QM with a endless list of formulas, while the the explanation of the universe remains very simple and you already know it.I see, since the math is difficult it is easier to just make up stuff. Well I agree making stuff up is easier, but it is not very useful.
Quote
... For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.Simple and wrong.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/11/2021 17:39:14
Simple and wrong.
arXiv - Black Hole singularity avoidance by the Higgs scalar field (https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05295)
Post by: Kartazion on 10/11/2021 05:28:47
... For example, passing over a black hole would have an enormous gravitational potential energy. Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.Simple and wrong.
As usual you do not justify the reason of your negation. Why the black hole does not have enormous gravitational potential energy?
Post by: Origin on 10/11/2021 13:31:19
As usual you do not justify the reason of your negation. Why the black hole does not have enormous gravitational potential energy?An isolated black hole would have no potential energy, that follows from the definition of gravitational potential energy.
However the main issue with your statement is this:
Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.That is simply gibberish.
Post by: Kartazion on 10/11/2021 19:12:52
Maybe isolated. But what are your sources? Once again they are badass.As usual you do not justify the reason of your negation. Why the black hole does not have enormous gravitational potential energy?An isolated black hole would have no potential energy, that follows from the definition of gravitational potential energy.
Here are mine:
As the gravitational field of a black hole extends to infinity, its potential energy extends similarly and contributes also to its observed mass. arXiv - The Gravitational Energy of a Black Hole (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508041)
However the main issue with your statement is this:Simply. I say that passing over a black hole would draw the curve of the Higgs field.That is simply gibberish.
Sorry but it's because you don't understand not much about it.
But now that you know that the potential energy exists up to infinite values, and that in addition there is a mass link, then it is easy to integrate the Higgs potential into the field.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs-potential.png)
Post by: Origin on 10/11/2021 20:15:53
Sorry but it's because you don't understand not much about it.No one can understand gibberish, it's gibberish...
But now that you know that the potential energy exists up to infinite valuesPotential energy is never infinite. Is it to much to ask that you at least have a vague idea of physics before posting!
Post by: Kartazion on 10/11/2021 20:30:08
Potential energy is never infinite. Is it to much to ask that you at least have a vague idea of physics before posting!
Potential energy is never infinite for a black hole? Origin do you at least have a vague idea of physics before posting? It is a publication of arXiv the sentence. Do you think I'm going to believe you, rather than a source of them?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2021 21:28:34
Origin do you at least have a vague idea of physics before posting?Yes, he has.
You don't.
Your diagrams also seem to be nonsense.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/11/2021 00:56:08
Yes, he has.
You don't.
You, you don't too. How could I believe you when:
As the gravitational field of a black hole extends to infinity, its potential energy extends similarly and contributes also to its observed mass. arXiv - The Gravitational Energy of a Black Hole (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508041)
or
In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html
or
A black hole has an infinite density; since its volume is zero, it is compressed to the very limit. So it also has infinite gravity, and sucks anything which is near it! https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25802/why-does-a-black-hole-have-a-finite-mass
or
The black hole entropy becomes infinite in the semiclassical limit of large horizon, i.e. r S → ∞ . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S055032132030198X
or
Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the center of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang/White Hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
ect...
Your diagrams also seem to be nonsense.
Why use the term seemed? It seems you are not sure.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/11/2021 01:36:32
arXiv - Black holes and Higgs stability (https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04018) We study the effect of primordial black holes on the classical rate of nucleation of AdS regions within the standard electroweak vacuum. We find that the energy barrier for transitions to the new vacuum, which characterizes the exponential suppression of the nucleation rate, can be reduced significantly in the black-hole background. A precise analysis is required in order to determine whether the the existence of primordial black holes is compatible with the form of the Higgs potential at high temperature or density in the Standard Model or its extensions.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/gravitational-oscillator-avoidance-singularity-higgs.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 11/11/2021 03:22:51
(https://physics.aps.org/assets/a4cb15d8-8687-4381-ad4b-437a47c1ebbd/e108_2.png)
source: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/108
(https://cds.cern.ch/record/2764892/files/doublehiggs-fig1.png)
source: https://atlas.cern/updates/briefing/double-higgs-double-difficulty
The double difficulty represents matter and antimatter, namely the anti-Higgs. The symmetry breaking therefore represents the culmination of negative energy, namely the maximum background of the singularity.
The two peaks represent the two orbits (ZPE) at the edges of the singularity, our current vacuum.
Semilocal strings are vortices in the extended Abelian-Higgs model with two complex Higgs scalar fields among which a global SU(2) symmetry acts.
(https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/4cbc62ee5cbaf871a886a2c734fb4b4ad2a257b2/17-Figure7-1.png)
source: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stabilizing-semilocal-strings-by-polarization-Eto-Nitta/4cbc62ee5cbaf871a886a2c734fb4b4ad2a257b2#paper-header
(https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/migrated/sc/hep/images/highlights/2018/HEP-2018-08-c-lrg.jpg)
source: https://www.energy.gov/science/hep/articles/beautiful-higgs-decays
Post by: Kartazion on 16/11/2021 01:06:59
I - Gravitational Oscillator (Hole Through the Earth Example)
II - Singularity avoidance by kinetic energy (Higgs)
You can't get any easier.
It would be disastrous for the patent and publication sector to be able to unify quantum mechanics with relativistic physics. What would colliders be used for?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2021 13:13:16
I have plenty of time to perfect my modelDon't waste time here then.
Post by: Zer0 on 16/11/2021 21:07:23
I suppose your Model is quite ready to be shared & distributed within subject matter experts.
Well Done!
You do not have to be worried much about " Patents ".
You posted your hard work in here.
These posts would bear resemblance of proof of your ownership.
Unless, someone, somewhere else already has all of this Figured Out.
So, all the best for your future endeavours.
Just take all printouts, & storm to your nearest University.
Amaze them all.
It would be a Pleasure to see your work being cited & published & receiving World wide recognition.
(Hoping you won't forget all of ours tiny micro contributions.)
Ps - Sorry H
😇
Post by: Origin on 16/11/2021 21:33:26
I have plenty of time to perfect my model and present it to universitys when the time is right.Whether you send it now or in the future it will still end up in the garbage so I would suggest you don't spend a lot of time on it.
You see we have already pointed out your countless errors {that you have ignored) so any knowledgeable person will not waste their time reading your obviously wrong paper. But I know you won't let me ruin your fantasy so have at it and dream on...
Post by: Kartazion on 17/11/2021 22:17:40
Don't waste time here then.This is just to warn you of the future vision of quantum physics vs level 101.
Whether you send it now or in the future it will still end up in the garbage so I would suggest you don't spend a lot of time on it.How to believe you. You have no credit for me.
You see we have already pointed out your countless errors {that you have ignored) ...Can you list them?
Nothing which disapproves of the proper functioning of my gravitational oscillator. Just a story of repulsive force where we didn't agree.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/11/2021 23:05:11
Can you list them?We started with
Gravity is energyand
I really mean that the force of gravity is energy.
And it didn't get better after that.
This thread is essentially you making errors, and us listing them for you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/11/2021 23:05:57
This is just to warn you of the future vision of quantum physics vs level 101.Does that mean you plan to post more dross?
Please don't.
In the end you will go the way of Dave Lev.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=46078
Post by: Kartazion on 17/11/2021 23:23:35
We started withGravity is energyandI really mean that the force of gravity is energy.
And it didn't get better after that.
This thread is essentially you making errors, and us listing them for you.
And besides that? What else?
This thread is basically good. It starts with the gravitational oscillator. There is even a tutorial on this.. You have to be able to substitute the center of the earth for the supermassive black hole.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti.gif)
Post by: Kartazion on 17/11/2021 23:33:41
Post by: Origin on 18/11/2021 03:06:57
To pretend not to understand my oscillator is to take me for a fool.Simple harmonic motion is a real thing, however your ideas are fantasy.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/11/2021 05:50:07
Simple harmonic motion is a real thing, however your ideas are fantasy.
Once again you are wrong. You talk to me about fantasy when this has already been studied. I cannot take you seriously. You don't know your subject well.
I understand that you are doing everything to discredit me. Is that I have to be right for you to act like this.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2021 08:42:40
And besides that? What else?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82710.msg647680#msg647680
You cannot reach the other pole by simply falling.
the problem remains in antimatter.
there would be an overlap between matter and antimatter from south to north and north to the south. I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.
The number of gravitons placed end to end (point to point), ie, on the direction of the vertical height, then gives the energy of gravitational potential; B
In the gravitational oscillator that I present, there are two types of radiation. First there is the vertical radiation, called fermionic, either the oscillation of the particle from bottom to top and from top to bottom; And there is horizontal radiation, or bosonic radiation
And that's just from the first page.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/11/2021 03:43:19
You cannot reach the other pole by simply falling.
I explained myself on this point in the message just after.
the problem remains in antimatter.
there would be an overlap between matter and antimatter from south to north and north to the south. I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.
Correct.
The number of gravitons placed end to end (point to point), ie, on the direction of the vertical height, then gives the energy of gravitational potential; B
Correct.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/graviton.png)
In the gravitational oscillator that I present, there are two types of radiation. First there is the vertical radiation, called fermionic, either the oscillation of the particle from bottom to top and from top to bottom; And there is horizontal radiation, or bosonic radiation
Ok. I'm not sure yet. But the distinction would be made according to the direction of the vector of gravity. Indeed for an annihilation of a pair of electron / positron with a type linear collider ILC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linear_Collider), but this one vertical. Clearly it would take a vertical collider using the gravitational force to verify my predictions. The decay scheme would be different if only by the kinetic energy, because indeed the scalar diffusion of the energy would act in the vector direction of the particle.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-radiation-gluon.png)
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2021 10:21:50
Correct.No.
It's not correct to say
the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.because there's no antimatter there.
Correct.No, it is not correct to say
The number of gravitons placed end to endbecause it's not clear that they even have an "end".
So, in reality, you still have not fixed the problems we told you about on your first page.
And that's because your ideas are just wrong.
You totally fail to grasp the difference between bosons and fermions (it's the spin, btw) and so you post rubbish like this
First there is the vertical radiation, called fermionic, either the oscillation of the particle from bottom to top and from top to bottom; And there is horizontal radiation, or bosonic radiation
I'm not sure yet.Then stop posting nonsense, and learn.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/11/2021 11:08:37
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2021 11:27:15
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
If you are looking at the Earth from far away, you can watch the satellites bounce back and to; and the physics is pretty similar..
But the rest of your stuff is hogwash.
Post by: Origin on 21/11/2021 14:16:30
The main thing is that my gravitational oscillator is workingI first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago. Hint: it isn't your idea.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/11/2021 14:45:54
because there's no antimatter there.The correct sentence is 'I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.' This is not a statement but rather a remark. Now how can you say that a positron will not be on earth or at its center?
because it's not clear that they even have an "end".This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.
Nobody disputes the idea that you can have something oscillating in a gravitational field that's obvious.Can you define and determine what 'something' is and what it means in physical terms?
If you are looking at the Earth from far away, you can watch the satellites bounce back and to; and the physics is pretty similar..Bounce back? By its magnitude? But I understand what you mean by that. Yes everything is oscillator.
But the rest of your stuff is hogwash.This is your sole responsibility.
I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago. Hint: it isn't your idea.Yes. Finally. It's validated.
Then and after the gravitational oscillator, there is the avoidance of gravitational singularity by the kinetic energy of the particle or massive object. Easy to understand and obvious. This is where the link between GR and QM is made. That's my idea.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
Post by: Origin on 21/11/2021 18:24:48
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2021 18:31:55
Bounce back? By its magnitude?No.
I mean that you would, depending on your view see it set off to the left, slow down, stop and then bounce back to the right and then it would slow down and stop and bounce back.
This is trivial physics.
Can you define and determine what 'something' is and what it means in physical terms?I did
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
Now how can you say that a positron will not be on earth or at its center?It might, but it wouldn't last long.
And there's no particular reason for it to be there any more than in the middle of my cup of coffee.
This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.Word salad.
This is your sole responsibility.I am not responsible, in any way for you posting hogwash. That's just silly.
If I was, I would stop you doing so.
Yes. Finally. It's validated.Well, the old physics was already valid.
Your word salad is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2021 18:33:40
because there's no antimatter there.The correct sentence is 'I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.' This is not a statement but rather a remark. Now how can you say that a positron will not be on earth or at its center?because it's not clear that they even have an "end".This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.Nobody disputes the idea that you can have something oscillating in a gravitational field that's obvious.Can you define and determine what 'something' is and what it means in physical terms?If you are looking at the Earth from far away, you can watch the satellites bounce back and to; and the physics is pretty similar..Bounce back? By its magnitude? But I understand what you mean by that. Yes everything is oscillator.But the rest of your stuff is hogwash.This is your sole responsibility.I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago. Hint: it isn't your idea.Yes. Finally. It's validated.
Then and after the gravitational oscillator, there is the avoidance of gravitational singularity by the kinetic energy of the particle or massive object. Easy to understand and obvious. This is where the link between GR and QM is made. That's my idea.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
Have you somehow got the mistaken view that an antiparticle has negative mass?
Post by: Kartazion on 22/11/2021 23:45:12
Could you label the axis of your graph.As you pointed out and for 50 years that you studied it, the axis is always the one which is in force. Besides do you have a link to the gravitational oscillator that the students are using? Because why when you type gravitational oscillator in Google images are my graphics that we see first?
What do you mean particle and antiparticle on the graph.I mean the electron transit through a positron. What don't you understand?
No.So do you have a trivial link on this point that the students are using? Thanks.
I mean that you would, depending on your view see it set off to the left, slow down, stop and then bounce back to the right and then it would slow down and stop and bounce back.
This is trivial physics.
I didThis is not an answer. You give me the link without putting a precise label on what determines a 'somethings'.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
It might, but it wouldn't last long.True.
And there's no particular reason for it to be there any more than in the middle of my cup of coffee.
The graviton is a hypothetical particle. So the quantitative size of a graviton is simply the particle :) So I said to put the particles end to end. What's wrong with that? You may have some understanding concerns. Here we are talking about quantitative and quantized quantum mechanics.This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.Word salad.
I am not responsible, in any way for you posting hogwash. That's just silly.You are at least responsible for your answers.
If I was, I would stop you doing so.
Well, the old physics was already valid.Do you have a ref or a link on this point that the students are using? Thanks.
Your word salad is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Have you somehow got the mistaken view that an antiparticle has negative mass?But I don't see any compulsion relationship. At the LHC, everything is going well with the anti-particles. What do you mean by that? What is the concern? I don't see what you don't understand.
Post by: Origin on 23/11/2021 04:00:40
Could you label the axis of your graph.I guess I have to ask again what are the axis of your graph? Is it a secret or something?As you pointed out and for 50 years that you studied it, the axis is always the one which is in force. Besides do you have a link to the gravitational oscillator that the students are using? Because why when you type gravitational oscillator in Google images are my graphics that we see first?
I mean the electron transit through a positron. What don't you understand?The whole "electron transit through a positron" thing. What does that have to do with your graph?
Post by: Kartazion on 23/11/2021 10:13:17
I guess I have to ask again what are the axis of your graph? Is it a secret or something?Space-time. An electron travelling backwards in time is what we call a positron. In the diagram, the electron travelling backwards in time interacts with some other light energy and starts travelling forwards in time again. (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Modern_Physics/Supplemental_Modules_(Modern_Physics)/Antimatter)
The whole "electron transit through a positron" thing. What does that have to do with your graph?In field theory the particle of my oscillator simulates the displacement of the electron and the positron. It is simply related to physics.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/1176179251/display_1500/stock-vector-quantum-field-theory-vector-illustration-scheme-and-feynman-diagram-electron-field-with-positron-1176179251.jpg)
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-vector/quantum-field-theory-vector-illustration-scheme-1176179251
Again. Do you have a link to the gravitational oscillator about your claim?The main thing is that my gravitational oscillator is workingI first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago. Hint: it isn't your idea.
Post by: Origin on 23/11/2021 12:57:07
Space-time. An electron travelling backwards in time is what we call a positron. In the diagram, the electron travelling backwards in time interacts with some other light energy and starts travelling forwards in time again.Why won't you answer my simple question? I don't get it. I asked because you have never labeled the X axis and have used different labels for the Y axis.
So let me guess and you tell me if I am right. The X axis is distance and the Y axis is inflation. Is that correct?
Don't worry about the other questions let's take these one at a time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2021 15:10:06
What don't you understand?Practically everything you say, because it is nonsense.
Post by: Kartazion on 23/11/2021 15:12:45
Post by: Kartazion on 24/11/2021 04:42:55
If I was, I would stop you doing so.You will never be able.
Don't worry about the other questions let's take these one at a time.
I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago. Hint: it isn't your idea.You are unable to provide a link to what you said.
Post by: Origin on 24/11/2021 22:20:40
If we look at this graph as written it makes little sense. The graph says that as "space", which is a volume, increases the total energy increases. However it also says that as the negative volume increases the total energy increases which makes no sense. I believe that your label 'space' is actually supposed to be displacement. I also think your label energy is actually Potential Energy (PE). Let me know if my guess is right.
Your work to the right of the graph shows 2 graduate lines. The first line shows increasing G until the point Xo and then E begins increasing. The next line shows the same thing only in the opposite direction. I assume G is actually PE and that E is actually KE. I also assume you are trying to show that PE is being converted to KE, and then the KE is being converted to PE. Let me know if this is also correct
You should not make you audience guess as to what you are trying to say.
A simple way of showing what I think you are trying to say is to have Y axes, one Y axis is PE and the other Y axis is KE is shown below:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQH7qhpnbwoUMlhTBMXpOayeWLQD6IDq5jMLpOZi94ICh6FAddlW5y_YFrUht2H0LFGU48&usqp=CAU)
You additionally have the words particle and antiparticle without explanation. What is the significance of the particle and antiparticle terms being there?
Post by: Kartazion on 24/11/2021 23:53:49
That isn't the graph that I was referring to, but that's OK, we can talk about this one.This is a very interesting answer. Yes that is correct. We can clearly see the proportionality between potential energy and kinetic energy.
If we look at this graph as written it makes little sense. The graph says that as "space", which is a volume, increases the total energy increases. However it also says that as the negative volume increases the total energy increases which makes no sense. I believe that your label 'space' is actually supposed to be displacement. I also think your label energy is actually Potential Energy (PE). Let me know if my guess is right.
Your work to the right of the graph shows 2 graduate lines. The first line shows increasing G until the point Xo and then E begins increasing. The next line shows the same thing only in the opposite direction. I assume G is actually PE and that E is actually KE. I also assume you are trying to show that PE is being converted to KE, and then the KE is being converted to PE. Let me know if this is also correct
You should not make you audience guess as to what you are trying to say.The advantage of my graph is that it also represents the real particle motion with it. But your graph becomes a complement to my publication. It is almost the precise representation of the proportionality of the two energies. PE or KE. Because for a quarter of the total displacement of the particle in my oscillator represents one of two energies. Potential or gravitational. But yours is in contuinity for two consecutive quarters of a single energy. Do you get it?
A simple way of showing what I think you are trying to say is to have Y axes, one Y axis is PE and the other Y axis is KE is shown below:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQH7qhpnbwoUMlhTBMXpOayeWLQD6IDq5jMLpOZi94ICh6FAddlW5y_YFrUht2H0LFGU48&usqp=CAU)
e.g.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/ke-vs-pe.gif)
You additionally have the words particle and antiparticle without explanation. What is the significance of the particle and antiparticle terms being there?Here is a point that is important. I can give you my opinion on this if you want.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 02:17:09
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 02:45:03
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/gravitational-oscillator-qr-code.png)
Post by: Origin on 25/11/2021 03:39:06
The advantage of my graph is that it also represents the real particle motion with it.Not sure what you mean by that. The graph I showed indicates the KE VS the displacement, so you know the particles velocity at each point.
Because for a quarter of the total displacement of the particle in my oscillator represents one of two energies. Potential or gravitational.What are you talking about? Potential and gravitational energy are the same thing.
But yours is in contuinity for two consecutive quarters of a single energy. Do you get it?No, what are you talking about?
Here is a point that is important. I can give you my opinion on this if you want.You can give me your opinion on why you wrote particle and antiparticle on your graph? Yes, I would like your opinion on that.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 03:56:04
Yes, sorry. Potential and kinetic.Because for a quarter of the total displacement of the particle in my oscillator represents one of two energies. Potential or gravitational.What are you talking about? Potential and gravitational energy are the same thing.
You can give me your opinion on why you wrote particle and antiparticle on your graph? Yes, I would like your opinion on that.Simply put, antimatter represents the lifeless side of Schrödinger's paradox. More seriously. I presume from the start of an anti big bang. Therefore this explains why we do not find the expected antimatter in our universe. During a high-energy collision, the particle pair annihilation detects the presence of antimatter through space-time.
For the rest the following video explains well everything that was written on the oscillator that I am describing.
Origin, you will understand that during the movement of the particle and for my oscillator an alternation between potential energy and kinetic energy is done every quarter cycle.
Post by: Origin on 25/11/2021 05:37:48
Simply put, antimatter represents the lifeless side of Schrödinger's paradox.That is not correct.
More seriously. I presume from the start of an anti big bang.What is an anti big bang?
During a high-energy collision, the particle pair annihilation detects the presence of antimatter through space-time.That makes no sense. You are saying a particle/antiparticle annihilation detects antimatter! How can an annihilation detect something??
Origin, you will understand that during the movement of the particle and for my oscillator an alternation between potential energy and kinetic energy is done every quarter cycle.I realize that you are talking about simple harmonic motion that can be seen in a pendulum or in a thought experiment where a mass is dropped into a shaft through the earth. This is just high school level physics.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 05:53:24
What is an anti big bang?Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists (http://Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists)
That makes no sense. You are saying a particle/antiparticle annihilation detects antimatter! How can an annihilation detect something??https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilation (http://Electron–positron annihilation)
I realize that you are talking about simple harmonic motion that can be seen in a pendulum or in a thought experiment where a mass is dropped into a shaft through the earth. This is just high school level physics.You realize a little late. Yes simple harmonic oscillator. Level 101. So why make a lot of it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2021 08:45:41
Yes simple harmonic oscillator. Level 101. So why make a lot of it?You started a whole thread about it.
You also seem to be adding some nonsense about antimatter.
Why do you keep doing that?
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 10:35:20
You started a whole thread about it.And who's pretending not to understand for having written so many pages for a simple oscillator?
You also seem to be adding some nonsense about antimatter.In your opinion where antimatter is?
Why do you keep doing that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2021 11:24:51
And who's pretending not to understand for having written so many pages for a simple oscillator?You.
I pointed out that it was a trivial system ages ago.
If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit simple harmonic motion.
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0
But it's not a very interesting system (and, of course, it's impossible).
I wonder if it's what the OP is on about.
You are still trying to pretend that it's something to do with antimatter.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 12:56:55
You are still trying to pretend that it's something to do with antimatter.Trying to pretend that it's something to do with antimatter? Fortunately. Antimatter is an integral part of physics. So yes, placing it in the model is essential. As you do not know where the antimatter is located, then my explanation seems inevitably wrong to you.
Post by: Origin on 25/11/2021 13:56:47
Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicistsThis site cannot be reached.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-positron_annihilationI know what electron positron annihilation is, but this is nonsense:
"During a high-energy collision, the particle pair annihilation detects the presence of antimatter through space-time"
You realize a little late. Yes simple harmonic oscillator. Level 101. So why make a lot of it?You seem to be trying to make a lot of it, but so far you have failed to do so.
Post by: Origin on 25/11/2021 14:00:08
Antimatter is an integral part of physics. So yes, placing it in the model is essential.Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.
As you do not know where the antimatter is located, then my explanation seems inevitably wrong to youWhat are you talking about? That makes no sense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2021 15:39:24
As you do not know where the antimatter is located,There is essentially no antimatter anywhere on Earth or within a billion miles of it.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 17:38:12
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.Can you explain why?
So I ask my question again. Where are you located antimatter in the universe?As you do not know where the antimatter is located,There is essentially no antimatter anywhere on Earth or within a billion miles of it.
Post by: Kartazion on 25/11/2021 17:41:14
https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicistsThis site cannot be reached.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2021 18:17:25
Did you not understand the 3rd and 4th words of that article?https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicistsThis site cannot be reached.
It starts "Our universe could be..."
Quote from: Origin on Today at 14:00:08That's not his job.
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.
Can you explain why?
If you say they are related, it is your responsibility to show that they are.
Post by: Origin on 26/11/2021 13:30:44
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.For the same reason that a Buffy-tufted marmoset or a nimbostratus cloud have nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.Can you explain why?
So I ask my question again. Where are you located antimatter in the universe?There is almost no antimatter in the universe. Antimatter is produced all the time but almost all of that is immediately annihilated by matter. Where do you think it is?
Post by: Kartazion on 26/11/2021 14:13:52
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.As usual, you are wrong.
Did you not understand the 3rd and 4th words of that article?My oscillator could be a perfect example to explain how the universe works.
It starts "Our universe could be..."
That's not his job.His job is to contradict without explaining why? Origin is not a real physicist.
If you say they are related, it is your responsibility to show that they are.
For the same reason that a Buffy-tufted marmoset or a nimbostratus cloud have nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.You are ridiculous.
Observing Matter-Antimatter Oscillations (https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/26)
There is almost no antimatter in the universe. Antimatter is produced all the time but almost all of that is immediately annihilated by matter. Where do you think it is?I have already answered that. On the other side of the big bang. In the antiuniverse.
Post by: Kartazion on 26/11/2021 14:20:28
Post by: Kartazion on 26/11/2021 14:42:45
(https://www.webastro.net/uploads/imageproxy/fermionic-model.png.d820ddc8f70354032fa777e847e4cd73.png)
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2021 15:04:13
"D-mesons are the fourth in a quartet of neutral mesons to be observed oscillating into their antiparticle partners."
The critical bit is the word "neutral".
You can't do that with charged particles like the electrons and positrons in your picture. The charge can't "disapear" and then reverse itself.
Also, the oscillation is anything by simple harmonic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2021 15:06:31
Quote from: Origin on Today at 13:30:44No, his criticism is perfectly reasonable.
For the same reason that a Buffy-tufted marmoset or a nimbostratus cloud have nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.
You are ridiculous.
As usual, you are wrong.
His job is to contradict without explaining why?Well, you contradicted him and didn't explain why he's wrong (you can't have done so; he is right) why shouldn't he?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2021 15:08:30
If you say " there is a link between antimatter oscillations and gravitational oscillations of a particle falling through a hole in the centre of the Earth" without saying why, and without showing evidence, you will get laughed at.
It isn't anyone else's job to show that you are wrong.
It is your responsibility to show that you are right.
You have not done so.
Post by: Kartazion on 27/11/2021 00:21:03
OK, here's the (first) bit you didn't understand:
"D-mesons are the fourth in a quartet of neutral mesons to be observed oscillating into their antiparticle partners."
The critical bit is the word "neutral".
You can't do that with charged particles like the electrons and positrons in your picture. The charge can't "disapear" and then reverse itself.
Also, the oscillation is anything by simple harmonic.
Meson–antimeson oscillations have also formed essential ingredients in the discovery of CP violation, a delicate, yet profound feature of our universe. These phenomena have been crucial for the evolution of the Standard Model of high energy physics and have more recently provided impressive validation for its CKM dynamics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230956960_Matter-antimatter_oscillations_and_CP_violation_as_manifested_through_quantum_mysteries
PS: CKM means Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa_matrix
The meson is a hadron just like the proton or neutron. This means that it is valid for all particles subjected to the CP violation. Quantum chromodynamics is a perfect example of what I might call the oscillation of a single quark between two or three positions.
My picture is a derivative of the Feynman diagram which works very well with charges.
Here is an old model that I made:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/atomic-model-feynman.png)
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/atomic-model-feynman-meson-pion-kaon.png)
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2021 11:13:28
The meson is a hadron just like the proton or neutron.And not like the electron or positron.
Post by: Origin on 27/11/2021 14:21:43
My oscillator could be a perfect example to explain how the universe works.Are you ever going to attempt to explain how some sort of electron and positron 'transition' has anything at all to do with your 'gravitational oscillator'.
Post by: Kartazion on 27/11/2021 14:28:47
And not like the electron or positron.Indeed hadrons are not leptons. But as mentioned above, the oscillation is valid for all particles subject to the CP violation. Let the leptons also be through the leptogenesis.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2177-0
When I raised this idea of oscillations between matter and antimatter a few years ago, it was the same thing as here. I was told it was impossible. But now mesons do it well for composite particles.
I tell you and it is the only solution. The electron oscillates well in positron. You will see what I say. I could always explain it in more detail, but for that you have to first admit to new things to explain that the universe is not so mystical as you suggest.
Are you ever going to attempt to explain how some sort of electron and positron 'transition' has anything at all to do with your 'gravitational oscillator'.What do you know about that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2021 14:55:12
What do you know about that?We want to know why you imagine there's any link between them.
Post by: Origin on 27/11/2021 16:09:37
What do you know about that?I don't know anything about a link between the two, that is why I am asking.
What do you know about that?
Post by: Kartazion on 29/11/2021 01:02:56
We want to know why you imagine there's any link between them.
I don't know anything about a link between the two, that is why I am asking.
What do you know about that?
The key is in gamma ray.
The result of the annihilation of electron / positron pairs from CERN or Atlas makes this clear. This link is just as well done through the Feynman diagrams. Its generated energy is much more powerful. What it proves the 'paternity' of the source of the matter (mass) by the disintegration. The question would be, why does a single pair of leptons generate so much energy? But the most important is the role of antimatter. As you can see from my oscillator, it appears to be like a balanced perpetual motion without mechanical constraints. It is precisely this side of equilibrium without mechanical constraint of the oscillation, that it causes that between kinetic and gravitation the role of antimatter becomes important. It allows the particle to simply bounce back, except that here there is no impact that occurs for the cycle of oscillation. It is like a pendulum where the ball swings and presents itself by its spin back and forth at each extremities from left to right or from top to bottom in our case.
Secondly, there is the Dirac Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea). It is the perfect representation of what becomes of the electron in the depths. Dirac predicts the antimattier and the positron.
Look at his following diagram: A genius, no?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Dirac_sea.svg)
The same particle to explain both.
Do you want me to develop more? We can discuss it quietly.
Post by: Origin on 29/11/2021 02:45:28
As you can see from my oscillator, it appears to be like a balanced perpetual motion without mechanical constraints. It is precisely this side of equilibrium without mechanical constraint of the oscillation, that it causes that between kinetic and gravitation the role of antimatter becomes important.How does antimatter have anything to do with 'your' oscillator.
It allows the particle to simply bounce back, except that here there is no impact that occurs for the cycle of oscillation. It is like a pendulum where the ball swings and presents itself by its spin back and forth at each extremities from left to right or from top to bottom in our case.What does that have to do with the gravitational oscillator or anti-matter. If I drop a bowling ball down a shaft through the center of the earth to the other side the bowling ball will oscillate through the earth. No anti-matter needed.
So I ask again: What does anti-matter have to do with the gravitational oscillator.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/11/2021 09:19:01
How does antimatter have anything to do with 'your' oscillator.My oscillator represents the displacement of the electron in positron like Dirac sea. I don't see why you say that.
What does that have to do with the gravitational oscillator or anti-matter. If I drop a bowling ball down a shaft through the center of the earth to the other side the bowling ball will oscillate through the earth. No anti-matter needed.
So I ask again: What does anti-matter have to do with the gravitational oscillator.
No anti-matter needed.Is there no need for antimatter? Yet it does exist. You're saying nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 10:34:20
The result of the annihilation of electron / positron pairs from CERN or Atlas makes this clear.If anything had made it clear, we wouldn't be asking.
So what you posted there is plainly wrong.
You still need a ,meaningful explanation.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/11/2021 11:26:24
Go. Now what? You are going to say that the production of gamma photon is not with it? You, you still need a ,meaningful explanation of your nonsense. With you whatever I say it's always, but always wrong. You are really not credible in my eyes. This is due to the fact that I am right on all levels. I have demonstrated to you every point that you have challenged by reason.The result of the annihilation of electron / positron pairs from CERN or Atlas makes this clear.If anything had made it clear, we wouldn't be asking.
So what you posted there is plainly wrong.
You still need a ,meaningful explanation.
Post by: Origin on 29/11/2021 14:24:23
My oscillator represents the displacement of the electron in positron like Dirac sea. I don't see why you say that.So you are saying your gravitational oscillator is 'like' an electron positron interaction?
Is there no need for antimatter? Yet it does exist. You're saying nonsense.Please don't be dishonest.
My quote was "If I drop a bowling ball down a shaft through the center of the earth to the other side the bowling ball will oscillate through the earth. No anti-matter needed."
Post by: Origin on 29/11/2021 14:29:47
This is due to the fact that I am right on all levels. I have demonstrated to you every point that you have challenged by reason.This is not true, you have utterly failed to give any meaningful explanation to your assertion that there is some sort of relationship between your gravitational oscillator and anti-matter.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/11/2021 15:55:32
So you are saying your gravitational oscillator is 'like' an electron positron interaction?Why interaction? It's the same particle. The particle changes from electron to positron.
Please don't be dishonest.Anything. We speak of an electron or a particle. We are talking about Dirac and antimatter. Your ball is a massive object made of atoms and particles. But yes, massive objects of classical physics do not need antimatter. Happy ?
My quote was "If I drop a bowling ball down a shaft through the center of the earth to the other side the bowling ball will oscillate through the earth. No anti-matter needed."
This is not true, you have utterly failed to give any meaningful explanation to your assertion that there is some sort of relationship between your gravitational oscillator and anti-matter.Ok. Why and by what physical constraint is it not possible to make the link between oscillator matter and antimatter?
Meson–antimeson oscillations have also formed essential ingredients in the discovery of CP violation, a delicate, yet profound feature of our universe. These phenomena have been crucial for the evolution of the Standard Model of high energy physics and have more recently provided impressive validation for its CKM dynamics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230956960_Matter-antimatter_oscillations_and_CP_violation_as_manifested_through_quantum_mysteries
Post by: Origin on 29/11/2021 16:44:56
Why interaction? It's the same particle. The particle changes from electron to positron.How is that possible? Do you have any evidence such a thing could happen?
Anything. We speak of an electron or a particle.An electron is a particle.
We are talking about Dirac and antimatter.No, we aren't. You mention the word antimatter, but you have not discussed how it applies to your other thoughts in any meaningful way.
Your ball is a massive object made of atoms and particles. But yes, massive objects of classical physics do not need antimatter. Happy ?Not really. An electron dropped down the shaft would not involve antimatter either.
Ok. Why and by what physical constraint is it not possible to make the link between oscillator matter and antimatter?You tell us how it is possible, it's your thread. If it is possible what is the link? You refuse to tell us this supposed link, why is that?
Meson–antimeson oscillations have also formed essential ingredients in the discovery of CP violation, a delicate, yet profound feature of our universe. These phenomena have been crucial for the evolution of the Standard Model of high energy physics and have more recently provided impressive validation for its CKM dynamics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230956960_Matter-antimatter_oscillations_and_CP_violation_as_manifested_through_quantum_mysteriesThat's swell.
Are you ever going to tell us how you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter??
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 17:30:26
You are going to say that the production of gamma photon is not with it?Not with what?
Your question does not make sense
You, you still need a ,meaningful explanation of your nonsense.I have only made two claims here
(1) your stories do not make sense
(2) you do not understand the burden of proof in science.
Which one do you want me to explain?
With you whatever I say it's always, but always wrong.You keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again.
You are really not credible in my eyes.I'm a professional scientist.
if I wasn't credible, I would have been sacked long ago.
You on the other hand, are just "some guy on the internet" who posts nonsense.
So there's no reason why I should care what you think is "credible" is there?
This is due to the fact that I am right on all levels.No
We have pointed out plenty of obvious mistakes.
I have demonstrated to you every point that you have challenged by reason.You have not demonstrated anything.
You just repeated your baseless claim.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 17:30:59
The particle changes from electron to positron.In reality, this has not been observed.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/11/2021 23:44:47
The primary goal of LHCb is to investigate matter-antimatter. Thanks to this results on mesons (or Neutron–antineutron oscillations) that all elementary particles would thus be alternated between matter and antimatter.
That it.
In a second time Dragan Hajdukovic shows that the amount of matter that can be converted into antimatter (or vice versa).
Plus Dirac...
So now admitted the possibility of an oscillation between matter and antimatter like modern scientists.
Post by: Origin on 30/11/2021 00:23:24
I prefer to listen to these people rather than you since UK physicists have successfully demonstrated that a subatomic particle can be transformed into an antimatter particle and back again.Since you have refused multiple request to show how antimatter relates to your gravitational oscillator (other than to just say it does with no explanation) and since that is allegedly what this thread is about, I will request the thread be closed. This is pointless.
The primary goal of LHCb is to investigate matter-antimatter. Thanks to this results on mesons (or Neutron–antineutron oscillations) that all elementary particles would thus be alternated between matter and antimatter.
That it.
In a second time Dragan Hajdukovic shows that the amount of matter that can be converted into antimatter (or vice versa).
Plus Dirac...
So now admitted the possibility of an oscillation between matter and antimatter like modern scientists.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/11/2021 00:31:46
Probing Gravity with antimatter https://indico.cern.ch/event/854237/contributions/3592525/attachments/2007995/3354189/Latacz_probing_gravity_with_antimatter.pdf
Gravity, antimatter and the Dirac-Milne universe https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328515703_Gravity_antimatter_and_the_Dirac-Milne_universe
Post by: Origin on 30/11/2021 06:13:37
Dirac-Milne Universe https://indico.cern.ch/event/227924/contributions/1537922/attachments/375816/522825/BenoitLevy_WAG2013.pdfNone of that answers the simple question. "how do you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter?"
Probing Gravity with antimatter https://indico.cern.ch/event/854237/contributions/3592525/attachments/2007995/3354189/Latacz_probing_gravity_with_antimatter.pdf
Gravity, antimatter and the Dirac-Milne universe https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328515703_Gravity_antimatter_and_the_Dirac-Milne_universe
Post by: Kartazion on 30/11/2021 06:57:58
Absolute proof that hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations occur in nature - arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508043Why interaction? It's the same particle. The particle changes from electron to positron.How is that possible? Do you have any evidence such a thing could happen?
PS: There is an electron or positron in it. Even better the whole atom is oscillating.
That's what I'm saying. Electron or other particle such as quarks e.g.Anything. We speak of an electron or a particle.An electron is a particle.
Quote
I do not see the link. You told me about a massive object and me about a quantum particle. But yes I mentioned the word antimatter, but you haven't discussed it. Yet AFAIK antimatter exists for quantum particles.Please don't be dishonest.Anything. We speak of an electron or a particle. We are talking about Dirac and antimatter. Your ball is a massive object made of atoms and particles. But yes, massive objects of classical physics do not need antimatter. Happy ?
My quote was "If I drop a bowling ball down a shaft through the center of the earth to the other side the bowling ball will oscillate through the earth. No anti-matter needed."We are talking about Dirac and antimatter.No, we aren't. You mention the word antimatter, but you have not discussed how it applies to your other thoughts in any meaningful way.
Nothing understood what you are saying there.Your ball is a massive object made of atoms and particles. But yes, massive objects of classical physics do not need antimatter. Happy ?Not really. An electron dropped down the shaft would not involve antimatter either.
Absolute proof that hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations occur in nature - arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508043Ok. Why and by what physical constraint is it not possible to make the link between oscillator matter and antimatter?You tell us how it is possible, it's your thread. If it is possible what is the link? You refuse to tell us this supposed link, why is that?
Gravity, antimatter and the Dirac-Milne universe https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328515703_Gravity_antimatter_and_the_Dirac-Milne_universeMeson–antimeson oscillations have also formed essential ingredients in the discovery of CP violation, a delicate, yet profound feature of our universe. These phenomena have been crucial for the evolution of the Standard Model of high energy physics and have more recently provided impressive validation for its CKM dynamics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230956960_Matter-antimatter_oscillations_and_CP_violation_as_manifested_through_quantum_mysteriesThat's swell.
Are you ever going to tell us how you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter??
You are going to say that the production of gamma photon is not with CERN?You are going to say that the production of gamma photon is not with it?Not with what?
Your question does not make sense
You forgot option (3) I'm rightYou, you still need a ,meaningful explanation of your nonsense.I have only made two claims here
(1) your stories do not make sense
(2) you do not understand the burden of proof in science.
Which one do you want me to explain?
The same wrong thing? Can you clarify which same wrong thing?With you whatever I say it's always, but always wrong.You keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again.
You should. My oscillator is operational. Yes, the internet helps me understand that I can explain GR / MQ theory at level 101.You are really not credible in my eyes.I'm a professional scientist.
if I wasn't credible, I would have been sacked long ago.
You on the other hand, are just "some guy on the internet" who posts nonsense.
So there's no reason why I should care what you think is "credible" is there?
My baseless claims are well demonstrated.I have demonstrated to you every point that you have challenged by reason.You have not demonstrated anything.
You just repeated your baseless claim.
1 - Gravitational Oscillator KE PE
2 - Matter Antimatter e.g. Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations
3 - Gravity & Antimatter model
None of that answers the simple question. "how do you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter?"Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 09:02:50
Absolute proof that hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations occur in nature - arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508043A 15 year old crank paper isn't proof of anything.
He presents no experimental evidence.
Post by: Origin on 30/11/2021 13:24:19
My baseless claims are well demonstrated.Nothing you are saying is making much sense and you certainly continue to avoid answering how your oscillator is related to antimatter. I will try the game of guessing at what you mean and you can tell me if I'm right. This game helped you make some of your graphs more readable.
1 - Gravitational Oscillator KE PE
2 - Matter Antimatter e.g. Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations
3 - Gravity & Antimatter model
My guess:
Your gravitational oscillator is like a pendulum in that they both can represent simple harmonic motion. You say electrons oscillate between matter and antimatter (electron - positron) and these oscillation can be represented by simple harmonic motion. Is that a correct assessment of your position?
Post by: Kartazion on 30/11/2021 13:45:06
A 15 year old crank paper isn't proof of anything.Ok. Yes. But do you refuted the antihydrogen hydrogen oscillation theory?
He presents no experimental evidence.
Nothing you are saying is making much sense and you certainly continue to avoid answering how your oscillator is related to antimatter. I will try the game of guessing at what you mean and you can tell me if I'm right. This game helped you make some of your graphs more readable.I have no more answer than the one I gave. Indeed I am here in new theory. The new theories are not published on the net. So my theory is new.
My guess:Yes exactly. But down to one detail. This is because the oscillator is anharmonic rather than harmonic. In fact, the speed of the particle varies according to the oscillation cycle. Another point. It is the pendulum. It does not oscillate in the direction of the gravity vector. Either vertically.
Your gravitational oscillator is like a pendulum in that they both can represent simple harmonic motion. You say electrons oscillate between matter and antimatter (electron - positron) and these oscillation can be represented by simple harmonic motion. Is that a correct assessment of your position?
Post by: Origin on 30/11/2021 14:55:38
I have no more answer than the one I gave.Maybe I missed it, what is the connection between antimatter and your gravitational oscillator?
Indeed I am here in new theory. The new theories are not published on the net. So my theory is new.What theory? I cannot see how all this fits together. Could you write what your theory is in a couple of sentences. Something like: My theory is....
Yes exactly. But down to one detail. This is because the oscillator is anharmonic rather than harmonic.You did not specify which oscillator is anharmonic. Are you talking about the pendulum, the gravitational oscillator or the oscillation of an electron/positron.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/11/2021 20:23:16
Maybe I missed it, what is the connection between antimatter and your gravitational oscillator?It is to first make the link between antimatter and gravitational oscillator.
None of that answers the simple question. "how do you think your gravitational oscillator relates to antimatter?"Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter
What theory? I cannot see how all this fits together. Could you write what your theory is in a couple of sentences. Something like: My theory is....My theory is just everything you are refuting here from my part. My theory is the connection between matter / antimatter and my gravitational oscillator.
You did not specify which oscillator is anharmonic.You missed it.
If you drilled a hole through the axis of the Earth from pole to pole, and put a long thin vacuum chamber in it then dropped an object into one end of that chamber , it would fall down the hole, picking up speed.
And it would be moving very fast when it reached the centre of the Earth so it would carry on going until it reached the other pole where it would stop, and then fall back down again
It would "bounce" back and to .
If the density of the Earth was constant (rather than increasing as you go down). the body would exhibit simple harmonic motion.
...
Hello.
The oscillation is indeed harmonic insofar as it is identical by symmetry of its movement. But in our case the particle experiences an acceleration as well as a reduction in its speed during its oscillation. In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed.
My question is isn't it more an anharmonic rather than a harmonic oscillation? We assume In your example of the earth that the density is constant.
Thanks.
Are you talking about the pendulum, the gravitational oscillator or the oscillation of an electron/positron.My oscillator is not a pendulum. My oscillator oscillates vertically according to the acceleration of gravity g for a particle of mass m. My theory is to make the link between the gravitational oscillator and the oscillation of an electron / positron.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 20:54:17
My oscillator oscillates vertically according to the acceleration of gravity g for a particle of mass m.So does a pendulum .
You should try learning science, it can be very rewarding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 20:55:35
. But do you refuted the antihydrogen hydrogen oscillation theory?I don't need to.
There is no evidence to refute.
When someone says they have "Absolute proof" you shouldn't just take their word for it.
If it was true then when the hydrogen turned into antihydrogen in, for example, the ocean, that antihydrogen would react with the normal hydrogen and produce initiation radiation.
The seas (and our bodies) would glow with the gamma rays produced.
But they don't.
So the idea is wrong.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/11/2021 21:35:22
A pendulum swings from left to right. My oscillator oscillates from top to bottom. Next time pay more attention to the words you read.My oscillator oscillates vertically according to the acceleration of gravity g for a particle of mass m.So does a pendulum .
You should try learning science, it can be very rewarding.Please, give me your source on the definition of what your pendulum is. And then look and tell me if it's the same as a vertical oscillaton?
If it was true then when the hydrogen turned into antihydrogen in, for example, the ocean, that antihydrogen would react with the normal hydrogen and produce initiation radiation.The sea and the body do not produce nuclear disintegration. The annihilation and production of gamma ray occurs at high energy. In other words, matter oscillates without annihilating itself other than a nuclear reaction.
The seas (and our bodies) would glow with the gamma rays produced.
But they don't.
So the idea is wrong.
Post by: Origin on 30/11/2021 22:24:47
It is to first make the link between antimatter and gravitational oscillator.So you don't know what the link is between antimatter and your gravitational oscillator.
My theory is just everything you are refuting here from my part. My theory is the connection between matter / antimatter and my gravitational oscillator.So you can't state what your theory is.
You missed it.Your an idiot.
A pendulum swings from left to right. My oscillator oscillates from top to bottom. Next time pay more attention to the words you read.So you don't know gravity is the driver of a pendulum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 22:55:24
My theory is just everything you are refuting here from my part. My theory is the connection between matter / antimatter and my gravitational oscillator.But there is no connection.
All we have is you insisting that a connection exists.
But you can't tell us what connects them, or why they are connected.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/11/2021 23:37:38
2 - UK physicists have demonstrated an evidence of particles oscillating between matter and antimatter.
3 - Click the following link to see what it gives:
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 13:51:23
Post by: Origin on 02/12/2021 14:38:36
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 14:42:59
You have seen that I can explain simple thingsNo.
We have seen you claim things, but you steadfastly refuse to explain anything.
it's my job to do thatNope.
It's not your job to be loud and wrong.
And you wanna stop me for these reasons.I want to stop you cluttering the forum with nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 14:44:49
Click the following link to see what it gives:It gives a bad animation of something we already know about.
But it doesn't say anything about antimatter or QM.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 15:00:49
It is easy to get back an answer to you. Between Origin repeating what I say like a child, and you who say 'Something we already know about' for my animation. Once again and as usual. You will be able to provide a link of what you say. I give you a possibility to provide me with a diagram similar to mine in force as you claim.Click the following link to see what it gives:It gives a bad animation of something we already know about.
But it doesn't say anything about antimatter or QM.
Post by: Origin on 02/12/2021 15:18:30
You will be able to provide a link of what you say.All you are showing is simple harmonic motion and then you say something like antimatter exists. In this entire thread you have never explained why you think there is a connection between these two things. You can't even state your alleged theory. This is absurd.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 15:49:25
A simple way of showing what I think you are trying to say is to have Y axes, one Y axis is PE and the other Y axis is KE is shown below:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQH7qhpnbwoUMlhTBMXpOayeWLQD6IDq5jMLpOZi94ICh6FAddlW5y_YFrUht2H0LFGU48&usqp=CAU)
You additionally have the words particle and antiparticle without explanation. What is the significance of the particle and antiparticle terms being there?
How do you interpret the potential or kinetic energy for the values of -x? I'm asking you. Is it negative energy or some antigravity?
Post by: Origin on 02/12/2021 16:54:06
How do you interpret the potential or kinetic energy for the values of -x? I'm asking you. Is it negative energy or some antigravity?If you will notice the KE and the PE are measured on the Y-axis. So in reality there are 2 Y-axes, one is PE and the other Y-axis KE. The displacement is on the X-axis and we have arbitrarily picked 0 to be the point where KE is at the maximum and PE is at the minimum.
As you move to the right (in the +X direction) the PE increases to a maximum and then decreases to a minimum in a cyclic manner. As you move to the left (in the -X direction) the PE increases to a maximum and then decreases to a minimum in a cyclic manner. The cycling PE is the same in both directions.
As you move to the right (in the +X direction) the KE decreases to a minimum and then increases to a maximum in a cyclic manner. As you move to the left (in the -X direction) the KE decreases to a minimum and then increases to a maximum in a cyclic manner. The cycling KE is the same in both directions.
The PE and the KE are 180 degrees out of phase, because the KE is converted to PE and then the PE is converted to KE.
That is simple harmonic motion no negative energy or antigravity is ever implied in this graph.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 18:57:26
...As you move to the right (in the +X direction)... As you move to the left (in the -X direction) ...It is the direction of movement of the particle with the sign + or - following x which is interesting. Now pair it with the value of + or - of x with the sign of the electric charge of the particle. The antimatter and the matter is represented by this sign of the electric charge. For information in quantum mechanic the harmonic oscillator also has negative eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian.
Post by: Origin on 02/12/2021 19:10:27
It is the direction of movement of the particle with the sign + or - following x which is interesting.That makes absolutely no sense. A particles charge and direction have nothing to do with what we are discussing. The graph in question has nothing to do with charge.
Now pair it with the value of + or - of x with the sign of the electric charge of the particle.That has nothing to do with the graph we are discussing.
The antimatter and the matter is represented by this sign of the electric charge.Again that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
For information in quantum mechanic the harmonic oscillator also has negative eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian.Learn some basic physics, don't just string together terms you don't understand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 19:18:38
You didn't say anything about antimatter in that animation.It is easy to get back an answer to you. Between Origin repeating what I say like a child, and you who say 'Something we already know about' for my animation. Once again and as usual. You will be able to provide a link of what you say. I give you a possibility to provide me with a diagram similar to mine in force as you claim.Click the following link to see what it gives:It gives a bad animation of something we already know about.
But it doesn't say anything about antimatter or QM.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 19:19:13
That makes absolutely no sense. A particles charge and direction have nothing to do with what we are discussing.The type of charge of a particle determines the direction in which the particles will be deflected in a magnetic field such that the negatively charged particles will go toward the positive end of the magnetic field while positively charged particles will go toward the negative end.
You didn't say anything about antimatter in that animation.So where's the problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 19:21:18
"Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because..."
Just fill in where I left the ... .
Unless you are providing an explanation like that, you are not doing science, you are just wasting time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 19:22:12
So where's the problem?The problem is that you can't say the video explains your ideas about antimatter when the video doesn't even mention antimatter.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 19:25:00
I mention the antiparticle in the video.So where's the problem?The problem is that you can't say the video explains your ideas about antimatter when the video doesn't even mention antimatter.
"Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because...Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because the sign changes way. Of course the matter and the antimatter are subject to gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 19:42:32
Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because the sign changes way.But that's a property of any oscillation; it goes forward, then it goes backward.
You will have to do much better than that.
What you need to provide is a real explanation which says .
"Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because..."
Just fill in where I left the ... .
Unless you are providing an explanation like that, you are not doing science, you are just wasting time.
Post by: Kartazion on 02/12/2021 19:52:13
But that's a property of any oscillation; it goes forward, then it goes backward.A copy paste will do.
You will have to do much better than that.
Physicists have proved that a subatomic particle can switch into its antiparticle alter-ego and back again, in a new discovery revealed today. An extraordinarily precise measurement made by Oxford researchers using the LHCb experiment at CERN has provided the first evidence that charm mesons can change into their antiparticle and back again. (https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time)
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 20:54:21
The population of mice in the UK oscillates with a period of 1 year.
The sales of Christmas ornaments also varies with a period of 1 year.
But mice do not cause Christmas.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 20:56:25
A copy paste will do.A copy paste would do, if it was relavant.
You keep saying two things.
Thing 1 Particles oscillate
Thing 2 a rock dropped through the centre of the earth would oscillate
But that is not the same as saying that thing 1 causes thing 2.
A bee's wings oscillate, but that isn't the explanation of antimatter.
Post by: Origin on 02/12/2021 22:49:21
The type of charge of a particle determines the direction in which the particles will be deflected in a magnetic field such that the negatively charged particles will go toward the positive end of the magnetic field while positively charged particles will go toward the negative end.We weren't discussing charged particles or electric fields at all, we were discussing a harmonic motion due to gravity! Why would you start talking about that? Could you focus so we could move forward at least a little bit?!
Post by: Kartazion on 03/12/2021 01:18:00
I can only assume that you are being deliberately stupid.I don't see how stupid this is. Or we don't have the same definition of stupid. I'm giving you a link on the particle oscillation between matter and antimatter. The only way out is that you have to publicly renounce the veracity of the published paper, to make me believe that I am wrong.
The population of mice in the UK oscillates with a period of 1 year.Here we can see that you studied.
The sales of Christmas ornaments also varies with a period of 1 year.
But mice do not cause Christmas.
A bee's wings oscillate, but that isn't the explanation of antimatter.Do you reproach me for not explaining why antimatter exists?
We weren't discussing charged particles or electric fields at allAbsurd. You are beside the point yourself. When we talk about of the electric charge of a particle, we talk about of antimatter.
... we were discussing a harmonic motion due to gravity!I do not see the relationship with the oscillator and gravity which is already very well studied.
Could you focus so we could move forward at least a little bit?!Can you you focus?
Post by: Origin on 03/12/2021 02:41:00
Do you reproach me for not explaining why antimatter exists?
Absurd. You are beside the point yourself. When we talk about of the electric charge of a particle, we talk about of antimatter.
I do not see the relationship with the oscillator and gravity which is already very well studied.Well this is hopeless.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/12/2021 03:52:47
Well this is hopeless.You don't understand the link between gravity and oscillator?
You don't understand the connection between electric charge and antimatter?
You're done.
Post by: pzkpfw on 03/12/2021 06:49:45
Well this is hopeless.You don't understand the link between gravity and oscillator?
You don't understand the connection between electric charge and antimatter?
You're done.
You start with "2 + 3 = 5"
Then jump to "banana + happy = purple"
And people ask "how did you get to 'purple'?"
And you say "but but but all these experts say 2 + 3 = 5!"
Post by: Kartazion on 03/12/2021 07:39:44
You start with "2 + 3 = 5"Why make an analogy like this when real terms are used?
Then jump to "banana + happy = purple"
And people ask "how did you get to 'purple'?"
And you say "but but but all these experts say 2 + 3 = 5!"
Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons. That's it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2021 11:36:39
I don't see how stupid this is.I think we should leave it there.
Post by: Origin on 03/12/2021 13:00:33
Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons.This is a prime example of why it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion you.
1. The language barrier: You mean reject, not refute.
2. You lie: Neither of us have denied that a charm meson can switch between matter and antimatter.
3. You make wild assertions: You think all matter acts like a charm meson.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/12/2021 14:22:01
Yes I understand. It's because once again you are unable to say why.I don't see how stupid this is.I think we should leave it there.
You lie: Neither of us have denied that a charm meson can switch between matter and antimatter.Why use the word 'switch' when they use the word 'oscillation'? Look at your next message: who is the liar in the story?
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.
You make wild assertions: You think all matter acts like a charm meson.And? It's not?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2021 15:47:57
And? It's not?Prove it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2021 15:48:37
It's because once again you are unable to say why.I have said why.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2021 15:53:14
Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons. That's it.No. We do not..
We both accept that idea.
We are waiting for you to show that it has some link to gravity.
Why use the word 'switch' when they use the word 'oscillation'?Why not?
In this context they mean the same thing.
who is the liar in the story?You.
You said this
Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons. That's it.We do not.
So you lied about us.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2021 15:53:33
I don't see how stupid this is.I think we should leave it there.
Post by: Kartazion on 04/12/2021 00:06:05
That was a question I asked you. But one day I'll prove it to you. It's my job. I have a real business declared in this field. I'm going to go to university soon to develop my gravitational oscillator. Be patient.And? It's not?Prove it.
I have said why.Show me. I don't see where.
Look at your friend what he wrote ; He does not agree with your statement:Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons. That's it.No. We do not..
We both accept that idea.
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.So?
We are waiting for you to show that it has some link to gravity.I do not understand what you are asking me there again. I already said it in this thread. I repeat myself with the example of the meson. Antimatter and matter which oscillates plus the gravity with the quark (potential energy and kinetic energy).
I just joined the antimatter / matter oscillation plus gravity.
Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter
Post by: Kartazion on 04/12/2021 00:38:23
Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations exist. End.And? It's not?Prove it.
But you still had rejected the veracity of this. No?
So now I don't see where the matter / antimatter problem is with the gravitational oscillator. I specify that all particles are subject to gravity. Even the photon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 00:38:39
Look at your friend what he wrote ; He does not agree with your statement:
@ Origin.
My statement was
No. We do not..In reply to
We both accept that idea.
We are waiting for you to show that it has some link to gravity.
Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons. That's it.
Do you agree with my statement?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 00:42:07
Hydrogen-antihydrogen oscillations exist. End.Nobody has given any evidence for that.
You have cited some paper where someone claims it, but they offer no proof.
The fact that they call it "absolute proof" is a red flag.
As I said.
When someone says they have "Absolute proof" you shouldn't just take their word for it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 00:43:12
But you still had rejected the veracity of this. No?I didn't comment on the veracity.
I commented that it's an unsupported assertion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 00:45:26
So now I don't see where the matter / antimatter problem is with the gravitational oscillator. I specify that all particles are subject to gravity. Even the photon.Then you are an idiot.
We can drop a rock into a hole through the earth; it will oscillate.
Nobody disputes that. (In principle- in practice- it would be a challenge).
Do you think you can drop a photon into that hole and have it oscillate in the same way?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 00:48:26
Also, the oscillation is anything by simple harmonic.
OK there's a typo there, it should say "anything but".
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 00:51:32
Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion.
Also, the oscillation is anything by simple harmonic.
It is clear that we agree about the oscillation of matter and antimatter.
Post by: Kartazion on 04/12/2021 01:50:04
It is clear that we agree about the oscillation of matter and antimatter.Well everything is good because Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion. Right?
Then you are an idiot.The photon is a quantum particle*. It therefore oscillates between photon and antiphoton rather than oscillating itself. Do you understand this?
We can drop a rock into a hole through the earth; it will oscillate.
Nobody disputes that. (In principle- in practice- it would be a challenge).
Do you think you can drop a photon into that hole and have it oscillate in the same way?
*Not like a rock.
Post by: Kartazion on 04/12/2021 06:36:51
The oscillation can also be represented by the Dirac sea to understand the path of the particle.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Dirac_sea.svg)
• yellow = particle, • blue = antiparticle
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 11:32:37
The photon is a quantum particle*. It therefore oscillates between photon and antiphoton rather than oscillating itself. Do you understand this?A photon is it's own antiparticle, so that oscillation is meaningless.
Do you understand this?Better than you do- which is why I know that a photon is its own anti-particle.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2021 11:34:59
The hole through the Earth example is only there to indicate the cyclic principleSo, there is no connection between gravity and this oscillation of particles with their antiparticles.
Well, that's what the rest of us have been saying all along.
But it is the opposite of what the thread title says.
Does that mean you have finally realised we a right?
Post by: Origin on 04/12/2021 13:55:07
Well everything is good because Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion. Right?Yes, I guess we now agree.
Post by: Kartazion on 04/12/2021 21:44:19
A photon is it's own antiparticle, so that oscillation is meaningless.Yes I made a mistake. I would make a special model for the photon or the gluon.
Better than you do- which is why I know that a photon is its own anti-particle.Congratulations.
So, there is no connection between gravity and this oscillation of particles with their antiparticles.Yes we are right. The quantum particle has no potential energy, and the gravitational interaction of antimatter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter) does not act when the particle is moving or oscillating. In other words, I will remember that gravity does not act on the quantum particle / antiparticle as it moves. Thank you. You are the best.
Well, that's what the rest of us have been saying all along.
But it is the opposite of what the thread title says.
Does that mean you have finally realised we a right?
Yes Origin we now agree. Because your friend says the same thing as you:Well everything is good because Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion. Right?Yes, I guess we now agree.
It is clear that we agree about the oscillation of matter and antimatter.
Thanks all, and au revoir.
Post by: Kartazion on 07/12/2021 00:30:31
The days go by and nobody says nothing more ... nothing more after the confusion of the last message. Do you think you will get away with this? It was just an 'au revoir' and so here I am again. So rendez-vous to next page.
Post by: Kartazion on 07/12/2021 00:53:06
Origin and Bored refute the idea of an oscillation between matter and antimatter as scientists have discovered and explained it through mesons. That's it.No. We do not..
We both accept that idea.
We are waiting for you to show that it has some link to gravity.
1 - Quantum particles have a whole energy. They also have a mass, except the photon and gluon (and maybe even the graviton) and everything with mass is affected by gravity. But any source of energy can distort the geometry of space-time and is the source of a gravitational field. This is therefore the case for particles of zero mass such as the photon which is therefore massless. E = hv is the source of a gravitational field. One electron volt is the potential energy change caused by moving one electron's worth of charge, e, through an electrical potential difference of one volt. Hence one electron volt equals 1.602E-19 J.
2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.
3 - @Bored chemist please accept my apologies for not denying the oscillation.
Post by: Origin on 07/12/2021 01:45:13
2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.You don't know what you are talking about.
Post by: Kartazion on 07/12/2021 01:53:35
OK, agreed. How is the oscillation described in the official paper? Anharmonic as I said? Or is it a UFO type oscillation?2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.You don't know what you are talking about.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 10:42:09
2 - @Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.Actually, he's right.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 11:05:24
But why don't you answer my question?
How is the oscillation described in the official paper? Anharmonic as I said? Or is it a UFO type oscillation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 12:17:08
But why don't you answer my question?Because you can read the paper for yourself.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 12:48:41
Because you can read the paper for yourself.Once again you are unable to provide an answer. The oscillation is an anharmonic periodic fluctuation between matter and antimatter. @Origin wrongly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 14:04:59
Once again you are unable to provide an answer.In reality, I did provide an answer.
Here's a copy.
Because you can read the paper for yourself.
In your head, I didn't.
Does that not worry you?
Have you considered talking to a doctor about this disparity between what is true, and what you think?
Post by: Origin on 08/12/2021 14:14:26
@Origin when you say 'Antimatter has nothing to do with simple harmonic motion' you are wrong.@Kartazion, you keep saying this but you cannot actually say how antimatter has anything to do with simply harmonic motion. The reason you can't is because there is no connection.
The paper you are referring to discusses how a B meson can oscillate between its own antiparticle and back. This not a surprising thing since the Standard Model predicted this behavior. You make the absurd conjecture that since this oscillation occurs with the B Meson, it is true for electron / positron. Why would you make this claim? The answer is because you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were to graph the oscillations of the meson to antimeson flipping by time you would get a sinusoidal result. If you graph a pendulum swinging you would also get a sinusoidal result. Does that mean simple harmonic motion and antimatter are related? Of course not. Why do you think this means they are related? The answer is because you don't know what you are talking about.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 14:52:15
In your head, I didn't.
Does that not worry you?
Have you considered talking to a doctor about this disparity between what is true, and what you think?
The article talk about of oscillation as of a pendule. I'm right. I'm not fool as you assert. You on the other hand have a problem with me.
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-sees-new-form-matter-antimatter-asymmetry-strange-beauty-particles
@Bored, when you talk about oscillation in quantum mechanics they are necessarily of type simple harmonic motion. Plus in quantum mechanics anything that can be considered as oscillations can be extended by the anharmonic oscillator to just about anything.
@Kartazion, you keep saying this but you cannot actually say how antimatter has anything to do with simply harmonic motion. The reason you can't is because there is no connection.@Origin learn to read some sources and try to learn physics.
The paper you are referring to discusses how a B meson can oscillate between its own antiparticle and back. This not a surprising thing since the Standard Model predicted this behavior. You make the absurd conjecture that since this oscillation occurs with the B Meson, it is true for electron / positron. Why would you make this claim? The answer is because you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were to graph the oscillations of the meson to antimeson flipping by time you would get a sinusoidal result. If you graph a pendulum swinging you would also get a sinusoidal result. Does that mean simple harmonic motion and antimatter are related? Of course not. Why do you think this means they are related? The answer is because you don't know what you are talking about.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 19:00:26
The article talk about of oscillation as of a pendule. I'm right.Then it is clearly wrong.
With a pendulum, the bob moves slowly up and down. So half way through the swing, it is about half way up.
But an oscillating particle obviously can't do that.
It can't be "half way between a particle and an antiparticle", can it?
Incidentally, part of your confusion might be because you don't realise that the oscillation of a pendulum is anharmonic.
Try learning some science
I'm not fool as you assert.Apparently you are more of a fool than I had asserted.
You on the other hand have a problem with me.Don't flatter yourself.
I have a problem with people who post rubbish on science sites.
There's nothing special about you.
when you talk about oscillation in quantum mechanics they are necessarily of type simple harmonic motionNo; They are practically never simple harmonic motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anharmonicity
Post by: Origin on 08/12/2021 20:23:15
@Origin learn to read some sources and try to learn physics.You still don't know what you are talking about.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 20:25:45
Then it is clearly wrong.
With a pendulum, the bob moves slowly up and down. So half way through the swing, it is about half way up.
But an oscillating particle obviously can't do that.
It can't be "half way between a particle and an antiparticle", can it?
I can see that you totally ignore the subject and the CP-symmetry. The movement is asymmetric due to the oscillation. The asymmetry is due to the fact that there is only one moving particle between matter and antimatter. Either it is on one side or the other, but never both at the same time. Hence the CP violation.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/fermionic-model.png)
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 20:40:27
I can see that you totally ignore the subjectYou keep trying to say the "subject" is harmonic motion.
I pointed out that the change from particles to antiparticles and back can not be harmonic motion.
I also pointed out some other mistakes you made.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 20:46:37
You keep trying to say the "subject" is harmonic motion.What? This is what I said:
I pointed out that the change from particles to antiparticles and back can not be harmonic motion.
I also pointed out some other mistakes you made.
...The oscillation is an anharmonic periodic fluctuation between matter and antimatter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 20:53:39
So is thisYou keep trying to say the "subject" is harmonic motion.What? This is what I said:
I pointed out that the change from particles to antiparticles and back can not be harmonic motion.
I also pointed out some other mistakes you made....The oscillation is an anharmonic periodic fluctuation between matter and antimatter.
when you talk about oscillation in quantum mechanics they are necessarily of type simple harmonic motion.
You are arguing against yourself.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 21:09:08
My guess:Yes exactly. But down to one detail. This is because the oscillator is anharmonic rather than harmonic. In fact, the speed of the particle varies according to the oscillation cycle. Another point. It is the pendulum. It does not oscillate in the direction of the gravity vector. Either vertically.
Your gravitational oscillator is like a pendulum in that they both can represent simple harmonic motion. You say electrons oscillate between matter and antimatter (electron - positron) and these oscillation can be represented by simple harmonic motion. Is that a correct assessment of your position?
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 21:19:59
Hello.
The oscillation is indeed harmonic insofar as it is identical by symmetry of its movement. But in our case the particle experiences an acceleration as well as a reduction in its speed during its oscillation. In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed.
My question is isn't it more an anharmonic rather than a harmonic oscillation? We assume In your example of the earth that the density is constant.
Thanks.
Post by: Origin on 08/12/2021 22:42:17
In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constantWhat do you mean by this statement? Do you think a pendulum moves at a constant speed?
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 23:05:16
What do you mean by this statement? Do you think a pendulum moves at a constant speed?First we agree that the entire statement of the sentence is:
"In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed."
Otherwise to answer the question:
A harmonic oscillator is an ideal (e.g. in the vacuum) oscillator whose evolution over time is described by a sinusoidal function, whose frequency depends only on the characteristics of the system and whose amplitude is constant. The motion of an undamped pendulum approximates to simple harmonic motion if oscillation is small.
Post by: Origin on 08/12/2021 23:32:17
"In other words to be able to draw a sinusoid with x(t) the speed of the latter must be constant. This is not the case with the oscillator that I presented, because it implies a variation of its speed."What do you mean by this statement? Do you think the gravitational oscillator would not have a sinusoidal plot of displacement VS time?
You aren't very good at answering questions.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/12/2021 23:36:29
Do you think the gravitational oscillator would not have a sinusoidal plot of displacement VS time?Which gravitational oscillator? Mine?
Post by: Origin on 09/12/2021 00:20:24
Which gravitational oscillator? Mine?Yes.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 00:34:14
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/anharmonic-oscillator-7.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 07:42:40
Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/gravitational-oscillator-anti_singularity.png)
At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 07:43:53
"Dark matter can be explained by the quantum vacuum of quantum chromodynamics" Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, French physicist. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Cohen-Tannoudji
Here is a more subtle explanation to explain dark matter and quantum vacuum and quantum chromodynamics in relation to the oscillator.
Based on how the anharmonic oscillator mechanism works, the particle's path goes through different physical stages. First it would be fair to speak of the energy flow of the particle to express dark matter and of quantum vacuum. The particle would oscillate rapidly in the vicinity of the singularity (dark matter and more quantum vacuum) and in a second time more slowly in the vicinity of the matter (chromodynamics). In this case of large displacement, where the particle oscillate rapidly, it becomes an energy flow expressed by the quantum vacuum. The convergence of the energy flow of the quantum vacuum, in a smaller space, close to the singularity, then in turn becomes dark matter. At its opposite, there is the matter expressed by quantum chromodynamics.
Quantum chromodynamics would only be a duplication of the particle itself. To be continued.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/anharmonic-gravitational-oscillator.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 07:44:51
The previous description uses the axion to simulate the Axion dark matter and the QCD Axion Dark Matter.QuoteQuantum ChromoDynamics effects produce an effective periodic potential in which the axion field moves. The oscillations of the axion field about the minimum of the effective potential, the so-called misalignment mechanism, generate a cosmological population of cold axions with an abundance depending on the mass of the axion. With a mass above 10−11 times the electron mass, axions could account for dark matter, thus be both a dark-matter candidate and a solution to the strong CP problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion)
(https://media.arxiv-vanity.com/render-output/4842999/x1.png)
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 07:55:22
Quantum chromodynamics, and the reality of observation.
Quantum chromodynamics is the alternation of the particle itself to constitute the different quarks.
We can consider that this experience of obvervation is rare. On the other hand, if this is not observed, then the collapse of the wave function is irrelevant. This implies that the probability of the particle being in the combination of a proton or neutron is low. It belongs to the discipline of quantum decoherence where the particle is superimposed everywhere at the same time since there is only one. During the observation, an effort is to ask the quantum system to seriously position the combination of the particle. This is the preferred expression I would use to define what has just been described here: “I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” Albert Einstein.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/chromodynamic.png)
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2021 08:43:35
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 19:21:18
What you need to provide is a real explanation which says .
"Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because..."
Just fill in where I left the ... .
Unless you are providing an explanation like that, you are not doing science, you are just wasting time.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 12:34:31
It's a question of primary school that.Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 19:21:18
What you need to provide is a real explanation which says .
"Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because..."
Just fill in where I left the ... .
Unless you are providing an explanation like that, you are not doing science, you are just wasting time.
Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because the particle oscillates in the direction of the vector of gravity and is undergoing in one of the two directions either an acceleration or a slowing down.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2021 12:54:30
Antimatter/ matter oscillation and gravitational oscillation are linked because the particle oscillates in the direction of the vector of gravity and is undergoing in one of the two directions either an acceleration or a slowing down.
You keep saying two things.
Thing 1 Particles oscillate
Thing 2 a rock dropped through the centre of the earth would oscillate
But that is not the same as saying that thing 1 causes thing 2.
A bee's wings oscillate, but that isn't the explanation of antimatter.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 16:10:43
You keep saying two things.
Thing 1 Particles oscillate
Thing 2 a rock dropped through the centre of the earth would oscillate
But that is not the same as saying that thing 1 causes thing 2.
A bee's wings oscillate, but that isn't the explanation of antimatter.
The hole through the Earth example is only there to indicate the cyclic principle (direction of the oscillation steps between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy) brought to the quantum level.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2021 19:04:27
Quote from: Kartazion on 04/12/2021 06:36:51Did you realise that doesn't mean anything?
The hole through the Earth example is only there to indicate the cyclic principle (direction of the oscillation steps between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy) brought to the quantum level.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 19:13:14
Did you realise that doesn't mean anything?You never understand the simple things. Easier you can't do. This means that the quantum particle takes the same path as the rock. So I don't see what you don't understand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2021 19:20:04
Do you understand that?
Post by: Kartazion on 09/12/2021 19:26:16
Just because one sort of oscillator looks a little bit like another sort of oscillator does not mean they are related.No. I don't know what a sort of means in physics.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2021 19:49:54
You have not done that.
All you have done is show that they are sort of similar, and, as you point out "sort of" isn't really science.
Post by: Origin on 10/12/2021 00:34:59
Here is a more subtle explanation to explain dark matter and quantum vacuum and quantum chromodynamics in relation to the oscillator.What a load of pseudoscience gibberish.
Based on how the anharmonic oscillator mechanism works, the particle's path goes through different physical stages. First it would be fair to speak of the energy flow of the particle to express dark matter and of quantum vacuum. The particle would oscillate rapidly in the vicinity of the singularity (dark matter and more quantum vacuum) and in a second time more slowly in the vicinity of the matter (chromodynamics). In this case of large displacement, where the particle oscillate rapidly, it becomes an energy flow expressed by the quantum vacuum. The convergence of the energy flow of the quantum vacuum, in a smaller space, close to the singularity, then in turn becomes dark matter. At its opposite, there is the matter expressed by quantum chromodynamics.
Quantum chromodynamics would only be a duplication of the particle itself. To be continued.
Post by: Kartazion on 10/12/2021 23:03:05
To say you have unified them you need to show that they are two aspects of the same thing.I will deepen the subject in the days to come. But in the meantime, I have a question for you. If a macroscopic stone oscillates, do you think that the particles or atoms of that stone oscillate in the same way? Thanks.
You have not done that.
All you have done is show that they are sort of similar, and, as you point out "sort of" isn't really science.
Post by: Kartazion on 10/12/2021 23:46:55
What a load of pseudoscience gibberish.The entire quote was:
"Dark matter can be explained by the quantum vacuum of quantum chromodynamics" Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji, French physicist. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Cohen-Tannoudji
Here is a more subtle explanation to explain dark matter and quantum vacuum and quantum chromodynamics in relation to the oscillator.
Based on how the anharmonic oscillator mechanism works, the particle's path goes through different physical stages. First it would be fair to speak of the energy flow of the particle to express dark matter and of quantum vacuum. The particle would oscillate rapidly in the vicinity of the singularity (dark matter and more quantum vacuum) and in a second time more slowly in the vicinity of the matter (chromodynamics). In this case of large displacement, where the particle oscillate rapidly, it becomes an energy flow expressed by the quantum vacuum. The convergence of the energy flow of the quantum vacuum, in a smaller space, close to the singularity, then in turn becomes dark matter. At its opposite, there is the matter expressed by quantum chromodynamics.
Quantum chromodynamics would only be a duplication of the particle itself. To be continued.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/anharmonic-gravitational-oscillator.png)
At first, I will not talk about QCD which is easier to explain, but rather about quantum vacuum and dark matter.
What do you think of this source for its explanation? Thank you.
Four reasons why the quantum vacuum may explain dark matter (https://phys.org/news/2011-11-quantum-vacuum-dark.html)
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 00:53:23
If a macroscopic stone oscillates, do you think that the particles or atoms of that stone oscillate in the same way?The question is meaningless.
If you don't recognise that, you should go and learn some science
If you do recognise it, you should stop trolling.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/12/2021 01:42:52
A rock can always be observed with its momentum and position. Whereas its quantum particle it is given by probability distributions if the observation takes place. Because without this observation of quantum coherence the particle is in a chaotic state of ubiquity*. Of course the particle to be studied can also be in the form of a wave packet.If a macroscopic stone oscillates, do you think that the particles or atoms of that stone oscillate in the same way?The question is meaningless.
If you don't recognise that, you should go and learn some science
If you do recognise it, you should stop trolling.
In fact until you observe it, then the particle is not there, because: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." Albert Einstein
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 13:00:56
A rock can always be observed with its momentum and position.No, it can't- due to the uncertainty principle.
Why do you keep posting stuff that's plainly wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 13:01:59
In fact until you observe it, then the particle is not there, because: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." Albert EinsteinWhether or not a particle is there is not a consequence of something Einstein said.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/12/2021 13:39:27
No, it can't- due to the uncertainty principle.Yes we can. You are wrong. The uncertainty principle is insignificant for macrocopic objects. To hear you say that it would be impossible for the rock when it is only true for the quantum particle.
Why do you keep posting stuff that's plainly wrong?
Whether or not a particle is there is not a consequence of something Einstein said.I'd rather listen to Einstein than you. And Young's slit experiment makes it clear. So?
Your poor answer has no consequences for me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 15:04:21
The uncertainty principle is insignificantIt is small, but not zero.
Which is why you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 15:05:09
I'd rather listen to EinsteinThe trouble is that you listen, but do not understand.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/12/2021 15:28:29
It annoys me when you say nonsense.In fact until you observe it, then the particle is not there, because: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." Albert EinsteinWhether or not a particle is there is not a consequence of something Einstein said.
Observation Affects Reality.|
When you observe something in the world—a tree, a bird or anything else—you know that regardless of where and when you observe the object, it will always remain the same. However, what if I told you that the time and manner you looked at a particular bird would affect its appearance? It sounds quite absurd, but absurdity is normal when it comes to the bizarre laws of the quantum realm. The laws of quantum mechanics work very differently than the physics of the regular-sized world. ... Now, the most absurd thing about this phenomena is that it can only occur when no one is observing it. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the opening, the obtained image changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, it is clear that it did not go through another opening. In other words, when under observation, electrons are more or less being forced to behave like particles instead of waves. source: https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html
I'd rather listen to EinsteinThe trouble is that you listen, but do not understand.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein
@Bored chemist If I understand correctly, I can imagine that I'm better than your knowledge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 19:46:39
If I understand correctly,You don't.
That's the problem.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 19:48:15
Observation Affects Reality.|Yes it does. But that isn't the point.
Someone allegedly saying something about an observation does not affect reality- particularly when the person who said it has been dead for years.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/12/2021 20:00:59
The critical gravitational field strength to cause the avalanche electron-positron pair production by not the electric (Schwinger effect) but the gravitational field because of the Bloch oscillations and Zener transition between the Dirac sea states with the holes seen as positrons and the free electron states corresponds in field strength to the gravitational field at the Black Hole Schwarzschild radius sphere corresponding to the Unruh-Hawking temperature of the Hawking radiation of the half of the electron rest mass energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2021 20:40:22
Anyway...Do you know what any of that actually means?
The critical gravitational field strength to cause the avalanche electron-positron pair production by not the electric (Schwinger effect) but the gravitational field because of the Bloch oscillations and Zener transition between the Dirac sea states with the holes seen as positrons and the free electron states corresponds in field strength to the gravitational field at the Black Hole Schwarzschild radius sphere corresponding to the Unruh-Hawking temperature of the Hawking radiation of the half of the electron rest mass energy.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/12/2021 22:22:26
Do you know what any of that actually means?Any of that actually means that I'm right.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354680417_Schwinger_effect_in_the_gravitational_field
Because: the static electric field in the semiconductor model shows that the real path of the particle / antiparticle pair corresponds to the quantum vacuum fluctuation through the Dirac sea towards the gravitational field of the black hole.
(https://kartazion.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/anharmonic-gravitational-oscillator-singularity.png)
During the oscillation of the charm quark / antiquark (D meson) between matter and antimatter, the particle is converted into a flow of energy. There are the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, by this famous conversion of mass-energy equivalence.
Schwinger effect is an electron-positron couple created from the vacuum by an intense electric field.
Post by: Origin on 12/12/2021 14:29:59
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2021 14:53:37
Your graph is meaningless.At least he's consistent.
Post by: Kartazion on 11/01/2022 10:30:00
The oscillation simulation would boil down to this one * in JavaScript code between matter and antimatter.
If you are on one side, let to say the matter on the living side of the schrödinger's cat, then you could never see the antimatter on its dead side.
Particles & antiparticles have even been seen to exist as a weird mixture of both states at the same time, thanks to the quantum quirk of superposition (illustrated most famously through the thought experiment of Schrödinger’s cat.) That means that these particles actually oscillate between being matter and antimatter. https://newatlas.com/physics/charm-meson-particle-matter-antimatter/
Post by: Origin on 11/01/2022 13:01:40
If you are on one side, let to say the matter on the living side of the schrödinger's cat, then you could never see the antimatter on its dead side.I thought you might have given up this nonsense and tried to learn some physics, I guess not....
Post by: Kartazion on 11/01/2022 13:35:26
Do you think that there is no connection between matter and antimatter with the Schrodinger's Cat experiment?If you are on one side, let to say the matter on the living side of the schrödinger's cat, then you could never see the antimatter on its dead side.I thought you might have given up this nonsense and tried to learn some physics, I guess not....
Post by: Origin on 11/01/2022 14:47:06
Do you think that there is no connection between matter and antimatter with the Schrodinger's Cat experiment?That is correct there is no connection. You realize there is no actual experiment with a cat, right? Do you also realize that a cat is not a quantum object so it is only alive or dead?
Post by: Kartazion on 11/01/2022 23:04:25
Yes thanks. Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition.Do you think that there is no connection between matter and antimatter with the Schrodinger's Cat experiment?That is correct there is no connection. You realize there is no actual experiment with a cat, right? Do you also realize that a cat is not a quantum object so it is only alive or dead?
If the particle is on A (alive), then it cannot be on B. But at very high frequencies the particle has almost a 50% chance of being on A and B at the same time hence the superposition. If you had to chosen at random one position between two, then you would either have the particle or no particle hence the cat experience.
In Prediction ; The superposition of quantum states is at least straddling matter and antimatter before being several points only superimposed in the matter part.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/07/2022 09:51:14
Here is the link of the draft of the future paper related to this subject.
Personal advertising removed
Cordially.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2022 10:17:15
Post by: Colin2B on 29/07/2022 10:27:39
Here is the link of the draft of the future paper related to this subject.Please note that this site is not for personal advertising as explained in the rules you signed up to.
Discuss topics here please rather than refer to external sites.
Thank you
Post by: Kartazion on 29/07/2022 12:53:57
Please note that this site is not for personal advertising as explained in the rules you signed up to.
Discuss topics here please rather than refer to external sites.
Thank you
I did not know that scientific paper in review on MDPI were not accepted here.
Post by: Origin on 29/07/2022 14:12:08
I did not know that scientific paper in review on MDPI were not accepted here.Now you do.
Your entire thread is nonsense and any paper you wrote that includes this nonsense would never pass peer review.
Post by: Kartazion on 29/07/2022 19:15:10
Now you do.I did.
Sorry my dear @Origin. Where you don't see anything, your friend sees something.Your graph is meaningless.At least he's consistent.
Where I see something you see nothing.Do you think that there is no connection between matter and antimatter with the Schrodinger's Cat experiment?That is correct there is no connection. You realize there is no actual experiment with a cat, right? Do you also realize that a cat is not a quantum object so it is only alive or dead?
Your entire thread is nonsense and any paper you wrote that includes this nonsense would never pass peer review.So your amateur opinion doesn't matter to me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2022 02:34:10
Where I see something you see nothing.So... you are hallucinating.
Does that trouble you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2022 02:36:53
So your amateur opinion doesn't matter to me.My professional opinion is that
(1) he's right and
(2) You are posting nonsense.
Since it's my professional opinion, if you wish to disagree, you need to be professional about it. That means paying me.
And, to be blunt, I'm out of your league; you can't afford me.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/07/2022 04:21:30
So... you are hallucinating.You, you are... hallucinating and rest. Because I have the source.
Does that trouble you?
Antimatter, which is differentiated by having the opposite charge to normal matter, is composed of the antiparticles of normal matter. Some particles oscillate between being matter and antimatter via superposition, as illustrated by the thought experiment of Schrödinger’s cat. https://interestingengineering.com/science/physicists-observe-particles-switch-between-matter-and-antimatter
I am bored...
My professional opinion is thatIt's not nonsense. It's just that you to have a hard time understanding. Look, just the example of the "Hole through the earth" is no nonsense. So why are you denying the facts?
(1) he's right and
(2) You are posting nonsense.
Since it's my professional opinion, if you wish to disagree, you need to be professional about it. That means paying me.
And, to be blunt, I'm out of your league; you can't afford me.Talk for you.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/07/2022 04:28:21
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2022 12:36:30
Either way whether you like it or not I'll be published.The Lord of the Rings was published; that doesn't mean anyone should believe it.
Post by: Kartazion on 30/07/2022 13:45:35
The Lord of the Rings was published; that doesn't mean anyone should believe it.As you can imagine it's not a small publication that explains a little thing. You can only believe me because everything I explain here is related with the an-harmonic oscillator with solid references.
The chapters listed below may evolve but here is an example:
1. Introduction
2. Perpetual Oscillation & Ideal Distribution of Energies
3. Kinetic Energy & Potential Energy
4. Source of Quantum Fluctuations & Gravitational Singularity
5. Singularity Avoidance & Higgs
6. Second Interpretation of Singularity Avoidance
6.1. Hawking Radiation
7. Orbit, Inertia, ZPE & Potential Barrier
8. Vacuum Metastability
8.1. Tunnel Effect
8.2. Bifurcation
8.3. Energy Dissociation
8.4. Ionic Covalent Bonding
9. Graviton & Potential Energy
10. Asymmetry Matter Antimatter
11. Symmetry Breaking CP & Arrow of Time T
12. Path of the Particle, Quantum Fluctuation & Dark Matter
12.1 Neutrino
13. Dark Energy
14. Quantum Superposition
15. Quantum ChromoDynamics
15.1. Coupling Constant
15.2. Asymptotic Freedom
15.3. Plasma & Quark Confinement
16. Particle Radiation & Boson
17. Atom & Quantum Atom
18. Example Structure & Conclusion
18.1 Virtual Particle
References:
Spoiler: show
Post by: Kartazion on 03/08/2022 04:11:47
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Anharmonic_Oscillator_%26_Evolution_of_the_Universe.png)
References:
Spoiler: show
Post by: Kartazion on 06/09/2022 23:38:55
Post by: Astralisys on 08/09/2022 10:55:30
To run water from the mountains, does it take energy?
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 02:07:06
To run water from the mountains, does it take energy?It is Potential Energy. Through the Potential Energy is given the Kinetic Energy by its momentum.
You said exactly what I already wrote:
To run water from the mountains, does it take energy?Please open your own thread on this. Thanks.