[guest39538]

model g.jpg (12.97 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3346 times)

i and j are mass-less unless co-efficient. (factor that measures a particular property.)

[guest39538]

@ Mr Chemist

Edit for your peer please.

Title -  Quantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of a R³ real coordinate space  energy ''Matrix'', similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix".   An energy matrix  used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process  explaining the conclusion of that neutral is attracted to neutral .  This paper also contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox(s).   Proof's given in the form of three ''matrices'' and thought with the corresponding equations.

Introduction. 

The aim of this  paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a  R³ real coordinate space Matrix. similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix.    For the purpose of understanding, I define the Matrix as a real volume of space  that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional defined boundary is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1³ matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.


a and b.jpg (18.26 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3317 times)

 In matrix c there will be merged elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.

i and j.jpg (17.12 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3325 times)

Last but not least let's assign that  i = positive mono-pole and let's assign j = negative mono-pole and both i and j have physicality.

 My first question is , can i exist in a  single matrix a?  Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of  Matrix a,  would be repulsive points to all other points of the same Matrix a.   By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws ,   Matrix  a should always be in a state of expansion.

Citation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.

 Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity.   All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.

[Bored chemist]

And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?

Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.

The forces involved in my merged  i,j ''matrix''

i →F ← j

j→F←i

i←F→i

j←F→J

Still gibberish.

[guest39538]

And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?

Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.

The forces involved in my merged  i,j ''matrix''

i →F ← j

j→F←i

i←F→i

j←F→J

Still gibberish.

read my edit bruva....

[Bored chemist]

read my edit bruva....

Practically none of it makes sense

[guest39538]

read my edit bruva....

Practically none of it makes sense

Well that is strange because I can read English and I know I have explained it in very simple English and used clear context and definition.  Are you saying you have a learning disorder and cannot understand the explanation of a definition being used for the purpose of the discussion?

[guest39538]

Have I got to remind you

Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.

[guest39538]

ƒ:Δx = F₁

ƒ:ΔR³=F₁

So stop pretending you do not understand. 

The map is ƒ: a = 0→n

[guest39538]

@ Mr Chemist , how does this read?

A proposal for consideration of a N-field quantum theory.

- S.P. Leese, (credentials : Approximately 10 years of experience on science forums)
Spring 2018


Abstract:

This paper  proposes a theory of a “R³ real coordinate space-energy ''matrix'', similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix"., that may   describe the primary source of energy for a given system.    First will be shown is that  the formation of energy is a two part construct , with either part of the processing ,  the mechanics failing to retain form without the co-existence of the opposite sign.  Second,  a co-existence matrix shall be established that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometric point.   Additionally, such co-existence that may also explain and answer  a normalising that is , “neutral” being attracted to “neutral”, phenomenon of the gravity process.

Definitions and axiomatic information:

Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several contextual definitions must be accepted.  A “R³ real coordinate space-energy matrix'' shall be defined as an Euclidean volume of space.   Within  this matrix is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values, and/or elements. 
Finally let i = a mono pole positive polarity 1.60217733(49)E-19 C  and let j = a mono pole negative polarity equal to 1.6021765 × 10−19 coulomb

Queries

As defined,  is the following possible?

i ∈ [a]

Could i exist individually?

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?

Would i be in an automatic state of expansion? 

As defined,  is the following possible?

j ∈ [a]

Could j exist individually?

Would all the individual points of j be repulsive to all other points of j?

Would j be in an automatic state of expansion? 

I propose that both i and j could not exist as a thing with distinct and independent existence. By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws,  it is quite clear that all individual points of i would be repulsive to all individual points of i, all individual points of j would be repulsive to all individual points of j. In a state of individual existence, both i and j would most certainly be in an immediate state of expansion.

to be continued.......

[guest39538]

Still , do not understand?

[Bored chemist]

define the space to have an inner array

You will need to explain that.

I have given science the information,

You have given nothing but nonsense.

neutral will always be attracted to neutral.

And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.

Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.

It's not that I have a learning disorder.
The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what  you are using words to mean.
If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.

[guest39538]

define the space to have an inner array

You will need to explain that.

I have given science the information,

You have given nothing but nonsense.

neutral will always be attracted to neutral.

And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.

Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.

It's not that I have a learning disorder.
The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what  you are using words to mean.
If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.

And comments on the latest edited post?

[Bored chemist]

And comments on the latest edited post?

None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.

[guest39538]

And comments on the latest edited post?

None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.

You are really going to claim that you did not understand my last theory post edit ?             

Would you like me to explain with three individual n-spheres instead?   or even a n-cube?

  A n-dimensional manifold that can be embedded in Euclidean (n + 1)-space.

Can two opposite polarity,  equal dimension n-spheres occupy the same Euclidean space?

[alancalverd]

Since your nomenclature is inconsistent throughout the posting, it would be dishonest for anyone to claim to understand it.

I regularly cross swords with BC, but he is always honest.

[guest39538]

nomenclature

I tell you what, forget everything I wrote and concentrate on this one sentence.


Neutral is attracted to neutral..


Now which part do you not understand?

[guest39538]

I can now confirm the paper on the N-field showing various things including gravity mechanism is now being co-wrote.  I have been engaged in conversation through emails with this individual and he has agreed to be co-writer of the paper.   

Stay tuned.....The paper update and edit will be available soon.

[Bored chemist]

Neutral is attracted to neutral..


Now which part do you not understand?

I don't understand why this is worth posting  many years after it was already established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force

I also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.

[guest39538]

Neutral is attracted to neutral..


Now which part do you not understand?

I don't understand why this is worth posting  many years after it was already established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force

I also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.

First, your link is nothing like my notion.   Second, the real thing is atoms ,

What is a N-field particle?

An N-field particle is when two individual opposite  polarity fields simulataneously combine, at the same geometric point,  to form a single neutral field particle,  that has quantum physicality due to the mechanics involved.


What is a n-field?

A n-field is  a neutral field expanding isotropic from the N-field particle,   inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.


There you go.

[alancalverd]

Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.