The single field theory

[Butch]

I am pursuing a theoretical model based upon my hypothesis that all of our universe is constructed upon a single field.

I invite you to challenge me, it is how I progress!

First some prepositions:

I am not a big bang believer, I believe our universe is ultimately steady state and infinite, I understand the evidence that you will present to the contrary, however let us save that for later.

I am a believer in QM, the evidence is well tested.

I am not in agreement with the standard model.

The basic vanilla particle:

In my model the most elementary particle is a "well" in a field, this well diminishes via the inverse square.

The units of measurement to bring this well into relative terms is based on intrinsic angular momentum, h bar.

If you wish, plot the well. (Y = 1\X^2).

If you zoom out on your plot, you will note that the curve begins to approach a right angle, and indeed as X approaches infinity it is a right angle (X\infinity = 0). So my particle is as tiny as tiny gets. 

I had been calling my particle a fermion... I am uncertain about that now.

If anyone is having trouble with my explanation so far, I will elaborate.

Please feel free to question, challenge, brutally critique or just offer suggestions.

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Butch said:

In my model the most elementary particle is a "well" in a field, this well diminishes via the inverse square.

The units of measurement to bring this well into relative terms is based on intrinsic angular momentum, h bar.

If you wish, plot the well. (Y = 1\X^2).

Here is a plot: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+-1+%2Fx^2

This is infinitely deep and, as you say, approaches zero at infinity.

What is y in this graph? I assume x is distance from the particle?

6 hours ago, Butch said:

So my particle is as tiny as tiny gets.

What does this mean? What is the size of the particle? How does this relate to the value of the curve at infinity? Does the size of the particle depend on distance?

6 hours ago, Butch said:

I had been calling my particle a fermion...

That is easy to answer: what value of spin does it have?

6 hours ago, Butch said:

or just offer suggestions.

Don't bring irrelevant nonsense like your belief in the steady state universe into the discussion as it is likely to cause unwanted distractions.

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Butch said:

In my model the most elementary particle is a "well" in a field, this well diminishes via the inverse square.

 

Similar to the rubber sheet analogy we have discussed before.

 

The problem underlying all universal field theories is the question

" what is the source of the basic field (AKA the rubber sheet ?)"

Stating that a particle is a potential well implies that there is some sort of basic underlying field even in the absence of any and all particles.

A potential well. A potential of what exactly?

Edited June 7, 2018 by studiot

[Butch]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

This is infinitely deep and, as you say, approaches zero at infinity.

What is y in this graph? I assume x is distance from the particle?

X is spin Y is energy, x=y is ground.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

What does this mean? What is the size of the particle? How does this relate to the value of the curve at infinity? Does the size of the particle depend on distance?

This is interesting, potentially it is the size of the universe, the well extends to infinity, however considering the point x=y it has its greatest influence on the field in a very small region. It is not a solid sphere, as we tend to think classically, the well is the particle. 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

That is easy to answer: what value of spin does it have?

Another interesting one! Spin is energy, however a particle is a closed system... 1\2 or 1? If we consider the area inside x=y and x=0 there is measurable energy between them. This is the spin energy of x=1... How does that relate to quantum spin... not sure yet.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Don't bring irrelevant nonsense like your belief in the steady state universe into the discussion as it is likely to cause unwanted distractions.

I agree completely, likewise for the big bang.

7 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Similar to the rubber sheet analogy we have discussed before.

 

The problem underlying all universal field theories is the question

" what is the source of the basic field (AKA the rubber sheet ?)"

Stating that a particle is a potential well implies that there is some sort of basic underlying field even in the absence of any and all particles.

A potential well. A potential of what exactly?

At this time, it does not matter for the model, we can assume it is just there. Ultimately it is my personal belief that the source is a multi verse black hole.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Butch said:

X is spin Y is energy, x=y is ground.

The spin of an electron has the values + or - 1/2. So there are only two points on your curve.

And what do you mean by "energy"? The energy of the particle? Meaning kinetic energy or mass? Neither of which are related to spin.

So far, your idea doesn't seem to bear much similarity to reality.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Butch said:

 If you wish, plot the well. (Y = 1\X^2).

 

Quote

X is spin Y is energy, x=y is ground.

That can't possibly work. As Strange points out, spin is quantized. A continuous function makes no sense here. Neither does "x=y is ground"

And, as I have pointed out before: SPIN IS NOT ENERGY. You DO NOT have an energy equal to a spin.

32 minutes ago, Butch said:

 At this time, it does not matter for the model, we can assume it is just there. Ultimately it is my personal belief that the source is a multi verse black hole.

It matters quite a lot, especially in light of your tenuous grasp on the concepts. There is no sense in getting deeper into this if you don't understand the basics.

 

[studiot]

48 minutes ago, Butch said:

At this time, it does not matter for the model, we can assume it is just there. Ultimately it is my personal belief that the source is a multi verse black hole.

Of course it matters.

Why is it there?

And why is the black hole not part of it?

What, by the way is the black hole a hole in?

At least be realistic.

[Butch]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

The spin of an electron has the values + or - 1/2. So there are only two points on your curve.

And what do you mean by "energy"? The energy of the particle? Meaning kinetic energy or mass? Neither of which are related to spin.

So far, your idea doesn't seem to bear much similarity to reality.

The spin energy is the difference in the field curvature between x=1 and x=0, theta is 45° as Swan indicated I need to use a dot product, working on that.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Butch

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Here is a plot: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+-1+%2Fx^2

But why you used -1/x^2.. Butch said about 1/x^2 ...

 

[Butch]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Of course it matters.

Why is it there?

And why is the black hole not part of it?

What, by the way is the black hole a hole in?

At least be realistic.

It does matter, of course... However we can proceed to construct a model without that information.

My thoughts are that the black hole is in a parallel universe, I should probably stop referring to this as a well, it is actually an energetic peak.

Let us not be distracted by these things... for now.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

That can't possibly work. As Strange points out, spin is quantized. A continuous function makes no sense here. Neither does "x=y is ground"

And, as I have pointed out before: SPIN IS NOT ENERGY. You DO NOT have an energy equal to a spin.

It matters quite a lot, especially in light of your tenuous grasp on the concepts. There is no sense in getting deeper into this if you don't understand the basics.

 

Internal to the particle spin is energy, outside of the particle the sum of energies is 0. 

Interestingly you can't ever get completely outside the particle, but at classical distances the spin energy is certainly not measurable... But it does have evidence in the dual slit experiment!B-) 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

The spin energy is the difference in the field curvature between x=1 and x=0,

What field curvature? If X is spin, then this is spin 0 and spin 1, but those would be Bosons, not Fermions.

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

theta is 45° as Swan indicated I need to use a dot product, working on that.

Really? That's what you took away from my comment?

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

What field curvature? If X is spin, then this is spin 0 and spin 1, but those would be Bosons, not Fermions.

Really? That's what you took away from my comment?

Yes, it will be quite useful... especially when we start exploring what happens to the field when the particle gains and loses energy.

Strange brought a point, I cannot assume that this is a fermion, boson or anything having to do with the standard model... I have to start with what I have, a particle that is a field perturbation.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

But why you used -1/x^2.. Butch said about 1/x^2 ...

To make it look more like a "well". Otherwise, it looks more like a mountain!

13 minutes ago, Butch said:

Internal to the particle spin is energy, outside of the particle the sum of energies is 0. 

Where does the negative energy come from? (If the sum is zero, there must be an equal negative quantity)

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

To make it look more like a "well". Otherwise, it looks more like a mountain!

Where does the negative energy come from? (If the sum is zero, there must be an equal negative quantity)

There are a lot of ways to look at it, any will do...

Put a weight on a string and swing it around, the weight pulls out and you pull in, the result is zero and the weight follows a path where all points are equidistant from you, if you have a friend step into that path they will feel the energy, if a friend on the opposite side does the same, they will feel the energy but from the opposite direction.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

To make it look more like a "well". Otherwise, it looks more like a mountain!

Where does the negative energy come from? (If the sum is zero, there must be an equal negative quantity)

Actually it should look like a mountain, " well" is a more familiar term but actually the particle should be a peak in the field.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Internal to the particle spin is energy, outside of the particle the sum of energies is 0. 

Interestingly you can't ever get completely outside the particle, but at classical distances the spin energy is certainly not measurable... But it does have evidence in the dual slit experiment!B-) 

Particle spin does not contribute to any energy difference, absent an external field/interaction.

Spin is not energy. 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

It does matter, of course... However we can proceed to construct a model without that information.

My thoughts are that the black hole is in a parallel universe, I should probably stop referring to this as a well, it is actually an energetic peak.

Let us not be distracted by these things... for now.

This is not something you can set aside - for now or any time.

For instance it is not like a discussion about the temperature field in my house where for that purpose it is immaterial whether I use coal fires, electric or gas heaters or whatever.
There I can posit a heat source go on to discuss the resultant temperature distribution.

The problem, as I have already indicated is that you are offereing a circular argument.

Mass is a disturbance in the field. But the field is created by mass, which is a disturbance in the field which is created by  ....Oh my my head hurts in fact in the words of the song

I'm so dizzy

My head is spinning.

 

(Perhaps that is why swansont says spin is not energy )

 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Particle spin does not contribute to any energy difference, absent an external field/interaction.

Spin is not energy. 

Spin is not angular momentum, it is analogous to angular momentum... Same relationship as acceleration and gravity.

We refers to acceleration in terms of the force of gravity at sea level on the planet earth, the unit of "g".

Angular momentum...

Energy and angular momentum. ... When an object is rotating about its center of mass, its rotational kinetic energy is K = ½Iω². Rotational kinetic energy = ½ moment of inertia * (angular speed)². When the angular velocity of a spinning wheel doubles, its kineticenergy increases by a factor of four.

Source: Energy and angular momentum, http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys221core/modules/m6/energy_and_angular_momentum.html&ved=0ahUKEwjbg7OAi8LbAhUStlMKHYDlBCkQFggxMAI&usg=AOvVaw2gq-7fhFaRnLvutRN4G6rH

Energy is the ability to do work, bear with me and I will demonstrate how that occurs as the particle interacts.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Spin is not angular momentum, it is analogous to angular momentum... Same relationship as acceleration and gravity.

It is literally angular momentum. What it isn't is physical motion

 

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

It is literally angular momentum. What it isn't is physical motion

 

Do this for me, assume that the "spin" of the particle is x, plot 1\x^2. 

Draw a vertical line at x = 51.

Draw a vertical line at x = -34.

These are the sides of the slit.

Do your dot products for each x intersect.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

Do this for me, assume that the "spin" of the particle is x, plot 1\x^2. 

Draw a vertical line at x = 51.

Draw a vertical line at x = -34.

These are the sides of the slit.

Do your dot products for each x intersect.

Come on then. Show us what happens.

[Butch]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Come on then. Show us what happens.

The interaction of the particles spin at 2 different points causes it to exhibit a wave nature. Particles passing through double slit would produce an interference pattern... This is all a result of the spin diminishing by the inverse square. It is as if your friends were standing at different distances from you, one gets hit harder by the rope. At any rate the particles spin is doing work.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

It is as if your friends were standing at different distances from you, one gets hit harder by the rope

Not all waves follow the inverse square law. In particular waves on ropes don't.

How about answering my previous comment ?

[Butch]

Essentially you are discussing an infinite universe as opposed to the big bang...

You know what makes my head spin? Time having a beginning.

But, very well...

My opinion is that energy is pouring into our universe from a black hole in another universe producing a particle in this universe.

By the way, the CMB is a radiation signature of this event.

For this to be so, however... The fabric of our universe would have to be expanding at an accelerating rate (else wise the CMB would cook us)..

I hope this satisfies you, if you have other ideas, please hold them for later.

I did not say the particle is a wave, I said it exhibits a wave nature as it interacts with the slit.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Butch

[studiot]

Whether time has a beginning or not black holes come and go.

So what was in 'our universe' before this black hole?

And no I'm not discussing any sort of universe, infinite or otherwise.

 

I was discussing the inescapable circularlity of the logic of your proposition.

Something you seem remarkably keen to avoid.

 

I can posit a pot of gold at the bottom of my garden, buried by the faries who live there.

But however hard I dig I just can't seem to find it.

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, Butch said:

The interaction of the particles spin at 2 different points causes it to exhibit a wave nature. Particles passing through double slit would produce an interference pattern... This is all a result of the spin diminishing by the inverse square. It is as if your friends were standing at different distances from you, one gets hit harder by the rope. At any rate the particles spin is doing work.

No, I meant the mathematics that you alluded to. Please show in appropriate detail that this produces the expected interference effect.