Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Kartazion on 06/08/2022 03:42:15
-
Invariant transformation between vector and scalar interpretation of the mass-energy equivalence of the particle through the oscillator.
The scalar interpretation of the particle represents the entropy/perturbation of a very high frequency oscillation of the particle by its energy density occurring through the principle of mass-energy equivalence [1]. But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement.
For example, a point mass object in the space-time reference frame is then represented by an orbital state vector during its movement around a star (conventional interpretation). But in the same proportion the particle in its dizzying oscillation can only be detected and measured by its energy density, and depending on the type of anharmonic oscillation its flow of entropy/perturbation of the particle can be represented by an point mass object through a static value by a scalar value.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Anharmonic_Oscillator_%26_Probability_Position_of_the_Particle_through_the_mass-energy_equivalence_by_Scalar_Density.png)
In conclusion, this leads to moving a scalar value of the same density vectorially. The goal being the invariance of mass-energy bound by the particle.
This interpretation appears to be Einstein's Stress Energy Tensor version 2.0 in addition to the anharmonic inflation represented by the internuclear distance levels up to energy dissociation. The flux therefore represents the maximum quantity of movement (momentum) through mass-energy equivalence during inflation until its energy dissociation.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Anharmonic_Oscillator_%26_Bifurcation_%26_Energy_Levels_%26_Energy_Dissociation_%26_Internuclear_Distance_%26_Morse_Potential_%26_Inflation.png)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
-
Invariant transformation
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
-
Invariant transformation
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
I confess. But that's what we can say in French "Invariant d'une transformation" vs "Invariant of a transformation".
-
The transformation is from mass to energy or from energy to mass through the mass-energy equivalence. Its invariance lies in the identification of the particle either by a scalar value or by a vector value having the same energy density in both cases.
-
This transformation is only possible in the case of an oscillator. Because the scalar value is confined along the x-axis which is of determined value through a density-energy. During a very high frequency oscillation, the entropy of the vector which points to the barycenter of the particle determines the scalar density not by the uncertainty principle, but with that of the vector at a time t which determines the exact position of the particle in relation to x-axis and y-axis ratio.
-
identification of the particle either by a scalar value or by a vector value
How could a particle be a vector? That makes no sense.
During a very high frequency oscillation, the entropy of the vector which points to the barycenter of the particle determines the scalar density not by the uncertainty principle
This is word salad.
The phrase "entropy of a vector" makes no sense.
The "barycenter of the particle" makes no sense.
-
How could a particle be a vector? That makes no sense.
But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.
After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:
The phrase "entropy of a vector" makes no sense.
The "barycenter of the particle" makes no sense.
yes I admit. I meant the center of the particle.
-
But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.
The particles velocity is a vector, that does make sense.
After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:
Unfortunately that is just more word salad.
-
But during a weak or almost non-existent oscillation, the particle is then represented by a vectorial direction during its movement along x-axis.
The particles velocity is a vector, that does make sense.
After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric:
Unfortunately that is just more word salad.
You have to learn harder. Afterwards, as you know and see, there is the language barrier through what I am trying to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_vector
-
This is still word salad:
"After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric"
It may indeed simply be because English is not your first language. I hope you can find a better translator. It isn't worth my time to try and guess what you are attempting to say. Perhaps you should try your ideas out on forums in your native language.
-
This is still word salad:
"After that by acceleration of the oscillation of the particle by jamming of the vector becomes chaotic in its punctual interpretation. That's why I talked about entropy of a vector hence the following answering to this rhetoric"
It may indeed simply be because English is not your first language. I hope you can find a better translator. It isn't worth my time to try and guess what you are attempting to say. Perhaps you should try your ideas out on forums in your native language.
The vector that points to the center of the particle becomes chaotic in its visual interpretation because it oscillates so fast that it takes on a form of scalar entropy. The vector indicates the two dimensions namely a horizontal x-axis indication and a vertical y-axis indication. In no way do my words awkwardly use put in peril the mechanism that I am describing.
-
Somewhere the word salad is a form of entropy.
-
The vector that points to the center of the particle
What specific vector are you talking about?
-
The vector that points to the center of the particle
What specific vector are you talking about?
This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.
-
This is still word salad:
All linguistic expressions of physical phenomenon that are usually expressed with mathematic are word salads.
Everyone know that.
Why do you think "this one" is "a bad one" ?
A physicist saying "this is word salad" do itself word salad.
Dont agree ?
Now, if you do some description, you can use vectors, quaternions, scalars etc, etc, and no physicist would be upset if these terms would be attributed to some or other "physical entity".
This is the basic of epistemology.
A physical entity is not "the reality", it is something that can be hypothetised or measured by physicists, accordingly to some coherent quantitativ "logical system".
The proof of "the system" is done by measuring accordingly to the system prediction (and you dont need to give a good result everytime : You can specify the domain of validity of your system).
-
The second vector points along y-axis and its magnitude represents the momentum by a density-energy value.
-
This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.
Why do you you always refuse to answer simple direct questions. It is really frustrating.
I don't care that the "vector corresponds in some way"! I asked what is the specific vector you are talking about! Is it the particles velocity? Is it some force? I am simply asking what vector you are talking about.
Can you please just answer this one question?
Edit: grammar
-
All linguistic expressions of physical phenomenon that are usually expressed with mathematic are word salads.
Everyone know that.
Why do you think "this one" is "a bad one" ?
A physicist saying "this is word salad" do itself word salad.
Dont agree ?
Now, if you do some description, you can use vectors, quaternions, scalars etc, etc, and no physicist would be upset if these terms would be attributed to some or other "physical entity".
This is the basic of epistemology.
A physical entity is not "the reality", it is something that can be hypothetised or measured by physicists, accordingly to some coherent quantitativ "logical system".
The proof of "the system" is done by measuring accordingly to the system prediction.
Hello.
Yes I understand. Thanks for your contribution. I learn my my mistakes and this forum allows me to improve for a conventional description. At present I am only able to make graphs. So on this while I find the right words, I will create a GIF to easily explain what I want you to understand.
-
This vector corresponds in some way to the amplitude/magnitude in relation to x=0. IOW the base of the matrix is at x=0 and its linear vector in relation to x-axis determines by its length the position of the particle always following x-axis.
Why do you you always refuse to answer simple direct questions. It is really frustrating.
I don't care that the "vector corresponds in some way"! I asked what is the specific vector you are talking about! Is it the particles velocity? Is it some force? I am simply asking what vector you are talking about.
Can you please just answer this one question?
Edit: grammar
The specific vector interprets along x-axis:
1. the exact position of the particle
2. the velocity
3. the pressure
-
The specific vector interprets along x-axis:
I see the problem, you don't know what vector you are talking about. You have some half thought out idea and you are arbitrarily calling this vague idea a vector.
1. the exact postion of the particle
2. the velocity
3. the pressure
1. That in itself has nothing to do with a vector.
2. Velocity is a vector. But I don't think this is the vector you are talking or you'd have said so.
3. Pressure is not a vector, it is a scalar.
So if you don't know what vector you are talking about there is no need to pursue that line of inquiry.
-
...
...
3. the pressure
For the pressure it's a bit more complicated than that. We need to relate the energy-density value of y which corresponds to the second vector. Indeed one can determine with exactitude the momentum/pressure of the particle.
-
1. the exact postion of the particle
2. the velocity
3. the pressure
1. That in itself has nothing to do with a vector.
...
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0 indicates the exact position of the particle. I will draw you a GIF.
-
Waiting to do something more explicit
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Simple_harmonic_motion_animation.gif)
-
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0 indicates the exact position of the particle.
Please stop using the term 'vector', you don't know what it means and using the term incorrectly is very confusing. Length is a scalar not a vector!
Don't say this:
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0
Say this:
The distance between -x or x in relation to x=0
-
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0 indicates the exact position of the particle. I will draw you a GIF.
Not that it matters at this point but your gif has the particle at X = 0 for the whole sequence.
The particle is moving on the Y-axis not the X-axis, according to convention.
-
For the pressure it's a bit more complicated than that. We need to relate the energy-density value of y which corresponds to the second vector.
No, really?? The second vector?
Without using the word 'vector' and with as few words as possible, describe the "second vector".
-
The vector length between -x or x in relation to x=0 indicates the exact position of the particle. I will draw you a GIF.
Not that it matters at this point but your gif has the particle at X = 0 for the whole sequence.
The particle is moving on the Y-axis not the X-axis, according to convention.
I chose x-axis because graphically the displacement particle is related to its potential well. But as you know, it doesn't matter which way the particle oscillates:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Gravitational_Oscillator_%26_law_of_Conservation_of_Energy_between_Kinetic_Energy_%26_Potential_Energy.gif)
-
The second vector points along y-axis and its magnitude represents the momentum by a density-energy value.
Sorry I didn't see this post.
You really, really need to stop using the term vector! You just said here that the [second] vector's magnitude is momentum, so you are saying that the magnitude of a vector is a vector. That is nonsense.
-
I see this thread is descending into your oscillation nonsense so I will depart the conversation, have a nice weekend.
-
The second vector points along y-axis and its magnitude represents the momentum by a density-energy value.
You really, really need to stop using the term vector! ...
So I'm going to use the matrix one.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg)
-
I see this thread is descending into your oscillation nonsense so I will depart the conversation, have a nice weekend.
Have a nice weekend too.
Cordially
-
Without using the word 'vector' and with as few words as possible, describe the "second vector".
For the pressure it's a bit more complicated than that. We need to relate the energy-density value of y which corresponds to the second vector
Y determines the amount of energy density in relation to the velocity of the particle. Y remains that of an energy of the potential well.
Pressure in a fluid may be considered to be a measure of energy per unit volume or energy density. For a force exerted on a fluid, this can be seen from the definition of pressure: source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html
-
Y determines the amount of energy density in relation to the velocity of the particle.
The momentum is the energy-density in relation to the velocity of the particle.
But I wish and for the understanding of all to stick to the uncertainty principle rather than to have spoken of perssure [1]. The uncertainty principle which does not have to be, because through the exactness of the position and the momentum which represents the vectors according to x(t) for x-axis and the density-energy for y-axis becomes possible.
Reference [1] Matter confined to a small volume generates quantum pressure and this pressure acts as a source of gravity according to general relativity, in which mass, energy, stress and pressure are all sources of gravity. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271808012486
In the model that I am developing, it is a question of an exclusively gravitational oscillator whose source of potential energy is that of a gravitational singularity.
To be continued for the pressure part...
-
Here is an overview of the scalar quantities through an an.harmonic oscillator:
(https://zupimages.net/up/22/31/ugup.png)
-
For the reader:
..., so you are saying that the magnitude of a vector is a vector. That is nonsense.
Yes. Why do you say it's nonsense? In the convential interprétation "The magnitude of a vector is the length of the vector, and is derived from the Pythagorean theorem."
-
This graph demonstrates and within the framework of an an.harmonic oscillator the amount of energy density is in relation to the position of the particle between Kinetic and Potential energy. This experience occurs in a vacuum. This oscillator is a gravitational oscillator where its point of origin is a gravitational source.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Momentum-kinetic-potential-energy-density-gravitational-oscillator.png)
Have you ever studied this? And in this graphical representation/configuration?
-
You just said here that the [second] vector's magnitude is momentum, so you are saying that the magnitude of a vector is a vector. That is nonsense.
A vector is a quantity that has a magnitude and a direction. Velocity is a vector. That means velocity will have a magnitude, which is the speed and it will have direction. For example if I was in a car I might say my velocity (a vector quantity) is 100 km/hr heading east. Both a magnitude (100 km/hr) and a direction (east).
Why do you say it's nonsense?
The magnitude of a vector CANNOT be a vector. A vector has a magnitude AND direction. Magnitude does not have a direction so it cannot be a vector.
If this does not make sense to you then remove the word 'vector' from your vocabulary to keep from misleading people reading your posts.
-
If this does not make sense to you then remove the word 'vector' from your vocabulary to keep from misleading people reading your posts.
Ok. So I'm going to call it arrows. Here, then, on the following graph, are the arrows which give the information relating to a "table/database" (I guess it is not a matrix) the position of the particle in ratio of its quantity of energy.
(https://zupimages.net/up/22/32/p3v0.png)
Thanks to its arrows in relation to its database, the position of the particle is determined with precision at time t. For this and to make the distinction between kinetic energy and potential energy, it is necessary to know the direction of the arrow in relation to 0 as well as its length in terms of evolution.
-
This is the way that the KE and PE relationship in simple harmonic motion is usually presented:
(https://files.mtstatic.com/site_4539/5844/0?Expires=1659923910&Signature=MLPP0tfcr~uoyXZS~BNiOW9uh6tgUfXTxsDgv3aVA5jTA-0aP~yXUc5vTADFzqOLFKFkDMFXxJ4sgPDmQQjh5KWCIi-jWjm4W12HTvYN23bnDaHn6KZSBztYabbdpTVjML4kpYIk3plCkAYNuJhLqQ3mkenNscKnx5vMtUhiIps_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJ5Y6AV4GI7A555NA)
Graph is from: phys.libretexts.org
I think this typical presentation is more intuitive than your graph, but your graph looks correct, except that the axis should be just PE or KE not density.
-
Yes, the one you are presenting to me is that of the energy of the potential well. While the one I present is that of density. I think that the problem with the one you present to me, and I know it's conventional, is that the total energy in relation to y-axis does not take into account the negative energy which would be that of potential energy. In addition, with the conventional presentation, the rotation of my arrow in radians is only done from pi to 2pi, or an angle of 180° max, while my presentation allows a complete turn.
Small image attached to click:
-
Abridge:
In the case of a particle bound to gravity; it is logical to say that when the kinetic energy due to an impulse on the particle has in:
- 1 a great momentum until 0
- 2 an depletion of the kinetic energy until 0 at the point where it falls back.
IOW upon depletion of kinetic energy is then accumulated potential energy. Which means that when KE decreases PE increases proportionally and vice-versa.
The amplitude of y at x=0 gives the momentum of the impulse. Once the impulse given and in the case of a gravitational oscillator in the vacuum, then the motion is perpetuated.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Momentum-ke-pe-vector.png)
The arrows cathetus and hypotenuse according to their direction and their length determine all the necessary information relating to the particle; namely the energies at time t, the exact position, the impulse momentum, the momentum of the particle, the speed, ... Only the mass of the particle and the total distance of x must be predefined as a value. The frequency of oscillation of the oscillator then gives the total energy density of the system by the mass of the particle.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Qantum-vector-Kinetic_Energy_%26_Potential_%26_Energy-Gravitational_Oscillator.png)
-
If we want to keep the exactness of density-energy through an harmonic oscillator SHO in the proportionality between KE and PE as well as the good sense of direction of the arrow of its angular rotation; then in Figure 1 the exact corrective in graph. I imagine that this conventional model Figure 2 is a little obsolete following that of the new gravitational oscillator which brings the total energy state back to 0. The problem of the Figure 2 is that it does not take into account the negativity of y and represent only the energy of the potential well contrary to the energy density. In Figure 2 a clock cannot therefore be applied.
(https://zupimages.net/up/22/32/n85w.png)
Figure 1.
(https://zupimages.net/up/22/32/ighe.png)
Figure 2.
Here we have evidence of a new and very simple model to study for first-year students and up.
While waiting for relevant questions, I wish you a good evening.
-
...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Anharmonic_Oscillator_%26_Probability_Position_of_the_Particle_through_the_mass-energy_equivalence_by_Scalar_Density.png)
...
The super engineers got the super inspiration.
(https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-022-18076-0/MediaObjects/41598_2022_18076_Fig1_HTML.png)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18076-0