Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: CPT ArkAngel on 06/07/2011 11:07:14
-
Sorry :o)
See my Theory here (specially pages 4 to 6): http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0
And read my posts here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39757.0
In very short, the HUP (uncertainty principle) is caused by:
A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...);
+
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
+
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.
The whole universe is totally causal excepted, probably, living entities, naturally... This would be the cause of evolution... [;D]
-
Sorry :o)
See my Theory here (specially pages 4 to 6): http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0
And read my posts here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39757.0
In very short, the HUP (uncertainty principle) is caused by:
A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...);
+
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
+
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.
The whole universe is totally causal excepted, probably, living entities, naturally... This would be the cause of evolution... [;D]
Well I don't know where to begin...
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.
Particles are not restricted to 1/2 spin states. Some particles have higher values of spin, such as spin 1 and spin 2 particles.
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
Yes... I'd agree the electric charge is equal to mass (actually, you are best to say the electromagnetic charge because some particles are electrically neutral) - but anything with a presence of mass does not move at light speed.
A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...);
Ok... That is a possibility, but I can assure you it is not the reason for the UP.
-
C- All true elementary particles have a spin of 1/2. Only particles with spin of 1/2 have a true corresponding antiparticle causing annihilation.
B- The charge has no mass, it generates mass!!! Good physicists should stop to follow their tail...
A- It is similar to the pilot-wave theory.
It is not the standard model, so don't rely on the standard model but verified data by experimentation.
Sorry guys, i know it should be on the New Theories, so i stop. It was too tempting...
-
C- All true elementary particles have a spin of 1/2. Only particles with spin of 1/2 have a true corresponding antiparticle causing annihilation.
B- The charge has no mass, it generates mass!!! Good physicists should stop to follow their tail...
A- It is similar to the pilot-wave theory.
It is not the standard model, so don't rely on the standard model but verified data by experimentation.
Sorry guys, i know it should be on the New Theories, so i stop. It was too tempting...
No please... this has been mentioned in the physics area, so atleast let physics give an answer to your theories.
First of all, I don't know what you are defining as a ''true'' elementary particle. A photon has spin 1 and cannot be divided any further... so I am unsure how to conventionalize your speculations. There is no mathematical, observational or any qualititative data supporting your claims.
-
As for charge generating mass... I don't know how such a theory would exist, but mass is almost certainly a charge in itself. (Fg = -nabla phi Mg) is a particle moving due to the gravitational field - the M can be thought of a mass-charge on the particles system. Charge is always in the presence of a mass - the EM charge we are talking about now, not a gravitational charge. Current theory suggests mass-charge is generated by a Higgs phenomenon, whilst EM charge appears while moving in an EM-Field.
-
An elementary particle (EP) with mass has a spin of 1/2, it has an anihilating antiparticle with perfect geometrical symmetry (circular and spherical for EP) and opposite electric charge (not mass, same mass). The photon is the ultimate elementary particle, but i don't use the term elementary particle for it anymore.
You can't use a theory to deny another, you have to use verified facts.
The charge always propagating at the speed of light solves so many problems that it may be the best solution. No experiment deny it, in the contrary, it is the best bet, it is simply an ultra basic property, even more than relativity. In my model, you have space and charges, that's all! All dimensions but space are in the charge... The wave of energy is an expansion of some of the charge's dimensions. (note: fractal and superfluid links)
Gravity is like a DC component (analogy only) of the electromagnetic field, AC and DC unified form the Strong Force which is not a field but the binding of subatomic particles. It is a conclusion, not an assumption...
-
The Weyl Equation describes spin 1/2 for massless particles, whereas the Dirac equation predicts spin 1/2 for massive majorana fields and the Klein Gorden equation describes spin 0 particles. But as far as I know, the Weyl equation does not have parity invariance. I don't know if this somewhat agrees with the idea you cannot have a massless spin 1/2 particle.
-
I am more looking for the deterministic classical part of the field, without the non-deterministic part of the changes of the direction of the spin, though i have to keep an eye on the probabilistic implications. But it is a good question. It will be an extremely complex process to find the unified wave equation. Though i studied in Physics at University over twenty years ago, i am an Electrical engineer and i can't afford this painful process without some help. I consider myself a conceptual part time physicist [;)].
There is many circumstantial proofs that the charge rotates at the speed of light.
My first assumption is that everything is made of light and particles are made out of photons. The end of all decays is the photon. My second assumption is that there is a deterministic model underlying the probabilistic interpretation of QM, at least for the dimensions of the purely "material" world.
The magnetic moment of the electron using the compton wavelength indicates a rotation size in agreement with many experiments. Meaning the charge has a speed of C.
The Compton wavelength is used in the QM wave models of massive particles.
The spin has fixed values that represent an inertial angular momentum with a probability distribution for its direction. If you look at it in a relativistic point of view, what can possibly produce a fixed (quantized) inertial angular momentum? Something propagating at the speed of light with no mass, no inertia (superfluid?)... The charge...
I have made an extensive research on the net.
If you look only at the basic verified properties of particles, discarding the purely theoretical, and you forget the artificial separations of the standard model due to the lack of knowledge about the Strong Force, you find that the elementary massive particles are all a rotating charge with a spin of 1/2. Electron, muon, Tau and quarks. Bosons are a special case because my theory denied the Higgs. Of what i understand, if there is no Higgs, the actual models of W and Z bosons are not correct.
To be continued later, feel free to comment everyone.
-
I am more looking for the deterministic classical part of the field, without the non-deterministic part of the changes of the direction of the spin, though i have to keep an eye on the probabilistic implications. But it is a good question. It will be an extremely complex process to find the unified wave equation. Though i studied in Physics at University over twenty years ago, i am an Electrical engineer and i can't afford this painful process without some help. I consider myself a conceptual part time physicist [;)].
There is many circumstantial proofs that the charge rotates at the speed of light.
My first assumption is that everything is made of light and particles are made out of photons. The end of all decays is the photon. My second assumption is that there is a deterministic model underlying the probabilistic interpretation of QM, at least for the dimensions of the purely "material" world.
The magnetic moment of the electron using the compton wavelength indicates a rotation size in agreement with many experiments. Meaning the charge has a speed of C.
The Compton wavelength is used in the QM wave models of massive particles.
The spin has fixed values that represent an inertial angular momentum with a probability distribution for its direction. If you look at it in a relativistic point of view, what can possibly produce a fixed (quantized) inertial angular momentum? Something propagating at the speed of light with no mass, no inertia (superfluid?)... The charge...
I have made an extensive research on the net.
If you look only at the basic verified properties of particles, discarding the purely theoretical, and you forget the artificial separations of the standard model due to the lack of knowledge about the Strong Force, you find that the elementary massive particles are all a rotating charge with a spin of 1/2. Electron, muon, Tau and quarks. Bosons are a special case because my theory denied the Higgs. Of what i understand, if there is no Higgs, the actual models of W and Z bosons are not correct.
To be continued later, feel free to comment everyone.
I doubt I could entangle myself in this discussion any longer.
-
You have to read my theory and think about it for a while. Once you can put all the pieces together to get the big picture, it is amazing how it explains most mysteries of Physics in a very simple way.
-
Your theory is so against mainstream, I doubt it can be peiced together. Only than in your own head.
-
You are in a lack of arguments. Look at verified data, not theoretical models which constantly change according to new experiments, which shows that they are basically flawed. This is exactly where the standard model is right now. I listened to too many Physicists that were saying their model fit the data of new measurements, but in fact, they changed their model to fit the data and delayed the results.
My model is not that much against mainstream, you obviously did not read and understand it all. You shoot way too fast...
If i learned something from experience in my life, it is how to find the true sources of people's motivation. Don't be so naive...
-
If this is me being niave, then I must be quite smart.
Quick shooter or not, you argue it is not against the mainstream. I can find many arguements which would seem to point against that belief, including and most prominently the idea a photon has a mass. Experimentation (which is a varified data), puts a higher bound of photon mass at 10-51kg - so for your photons to have a mass, it would be ridiculously small... Fathom what you are asking first, before you want people to readily believe your theory. If you can fathom what you present, it should be explained in the most precise way - usually mathematics helps your arguement... in which case it is lost in this example.
-
Like i said, you did not read my theory, photons have no mass in my theory, because they have no timerate. This is Phractality's theory and his assumption is totally logical but the problem is in the definition of mass.
In my theory, Laws of Relativity are unchanged but they have limits that unify it to QM. QM is largely correct but HUP interpretation is different. People should make a differentiation between a specific interpretation of data and all possible interpretations of it. Another example is the Dark Energy, no data showed an acceleration yet, it is the interpretation of data according to beliefs in specific suite of popular theories. Redshifts correspond to relative velocity not acceleration, but if you believe in the accepted cosmological model, you have to believe in Dark Energy. They may be right on this one, i just don't know, but euclidean space can explain it otherwise.
-
Am I getting confused? I seem to be confusing this post with theirs. But equally, you have a few incorrect statements, and other statements I cannot make sense of; what do you mean the charge moves at lightspeed? What charge?
-
electric charge = mass charge
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0
-
So, you believe that the electric charge provides particles with matter? And so what about electrically neutral objects? You have defined the charge specifically as the electric charge here, but it seems against mainstream strong that the electric charge gives rise to matter.
Again... how do you account for electrically neutral objects, like the nuetron for instance? Ooof... deja vu...
-
the neutron is composed of 3 charged quarks... If you want to discuss my theory you should read it and take a few days to think about it. It is not because a particle has no net electrical charge that it has no electrical charges. In my model, a charge is composed of 2 half charges.