New Model for Particles.

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

I have a new model for particles. The model predicts correctly that a particle that absorbed (a) photon(s) (i.e. was accelerated), gets heavier.

The Model suggests particles are Riemann Spheres/Anti-Riemann Spheres, with circles in them identified and the properties are carried on these circles (encoded by numbers of superimposed space points). An Anti-Riemann Sphere is a Riemann Sphere made out of left out points of space. The Riemann Spheres are constructed from all of a 2-dimensional slice of space copied and compactified. The particles are made from Riemann Spheres superimposed on Anti-Riemann Spheres.

We see that we don't get the most beautiful theory. Particles being just Riemann Spheres would be more beautiful.

We see that every particle has infinity in it (at the north pole of the Riemann Spheres), which is why the particles exclude other particles from occupying the same space at the same time.

Thus a pi-minus looks like:

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

I have a new model for particles. The model predicts correctly that a particle that absorbed (a) photon(s) (i.e. was accelerated), gets heavier.

Existing theory already predicts this

4 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The Model suggests particles are Riemann Spheres/Anti-Riemann Spheres, with circles in them identified and the properties are carried on these circles (encoded by numbers of superimposed space points). An Anti-Riemann Sphere is a Riemann Sphere made out of left out points of space. The Riemann Spheres are constructed from all of a 2-dimensional slice of space copied and compactified. The particles are made from Riemann Spheres superimposed on Anti-Riemann Spheres.

Where’s the math?

4 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

We see that we don't get the most beautiful theory. Particles being just Riemann Spheres would be more beautiful.

We see that every particle has infinity in it (at the north pole of the Riemann Spheres), which is why the particles exclude other particles from occupying the same space at the same time.

Thus a pi-minus looks like:

This is less than illuminating. What does it mean that you have different things labeled “red” “weak isospin” “mass” etc.

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Existing theory already predicts this

My model predicts why it gets heavier. Namely because a pi-minus having absorbed photons would manifest as a bare pi-minus with superimposed Riemann Spheres with the mass-circle having the extra space points. For this photons must be Riemann Spheres with energy on what can be labelled as the mass-circle and also space points on the spin-circle.

I will answer the other questions later.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

My model predicts why it gets heavier. Namely because a pi-minus having absorbed photons would manifest as a bare pi-minus with superimposed Riemann Spheres with the mass-circle having the extra space points. For this photons must be Riemann Spheres with energy on what can be labelled as the mass-circle and also space points on the spin-circle.

I will answer the other questions later.

Standard physics says it gets heavier because E=mc^2. If you have some other reason, then your conjecture says relativity must be wrong.

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Standard physics says it gets heavier because E=mc^2. If you have some other reason, then your conjecture says relativity must be wrong.

Having an equation does not supply a reason for why the property holds, since there is always the question: "Why does the equation hold?". So I see that my reason is not in conflict with the formula. The same formula could apply to my reason.

Note that the previous post is not quite right: photons are also Riemann Spheres/Anti-Riemann Spheres.

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where’s the math?

The math is just the math of Riemann Spheres (stereographic projection and the like).

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is less than illuminating. What does it mean that you have different things labeled “red” “weak isospin” “mass” etc.

It means the computer running the Universe knows on what circles what properties are located. The computer can read this by orientating the particle appropriately.

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

It means the computer running the Universe knows on what circles what properties are located. The computer can read this by orientating the particle appropriately.

Not this rubbish again please.

Speculation upon speculation upon speculation upon......

 

BTW do you actually know what a Riemann Sphere is ?

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

BTW do you actually know what a Riemann Sphere is ?

Yes, it's the Complex Plane with stereographic projection onto a Sphere.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Not this rubbish again please.

What causes the computation then?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The math is just the math of Riemann Spheres (stereographic projection and the like)

Equations describing the behavior of nature need to stem from some kind of scientific principle. You can't just pop in and say "it's all Riemann spheres" without some physical principle being tied into it.

Quote

It means the computer running the Universe knows on what circles what properties are located.

What does it mean to us? (you've already been told appealing to this alleged computer is a non-starter)

[Ghideon]

37 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

What causes the computation then?

What computation? What makes you think there is a computation?
 
 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

It means the computer running the Universe knows on what circles what properties are located. The computer can read this by orientating the particle appropriately.

!

Moderator Note

You can't support one speculation with arguments that failed in another speculation. You need to support the idea with evidence, or move on from the idea, or this thread will be closed. 

 

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

Yes, it's the Complex Plane with stereographic projection onto a Sphere.

Which means exactly what to a particle ?

 

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The Model suggests particles are Riemann Spheres/Anti-Riemann Spheres,

 

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

(encoded by numbers of superimposed space points)

Are you still arguing that you can only apply numbers to a 'space point' on a one to one basis ?

and what do 'space points' have to do with complex planes ? What exactly is complex about a real space point ?

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

14 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What computation? What makes you think there is a computation?

For example when an electron absorbs a photon there is a computation first to see if the spin of the electron has the correct sign, so that it can or cannot occupy the next energy level. If the computation results in a spin sign that is already present in the higher energy level, then the absorption cannot happen. In addition the "computer" must know the energy level of the higher energy level and must preform a minus operation and a comparison with the photon energy. This is the evidence. How are you going to implement this without assuming some computer?

Or when velocity summing takes place in Special Relativity.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

What does it mean to us?

It labels the properties of the particle. I don't know what else you mean.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Which means exactly what to a particle ?

It means the particle can't occupy the same space as another particle (fermion). The particles would occupy more than one space points.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you still arguing that you can only apply numbers to a 'space point' on a one to one basis ?

No, I am claiming each space point can take numbers: sss...stsss...st etc.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

What exactly is complex about a real space point ?

The computer concatenates an i to the y-coordinate.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Equations describing the behavior of nature need to stem from some kind of scientific principle.

The principle is that all of a 2-dimensional spice of space can be copied and compactified into a Riemann Sphere.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

For example when an electron absorbs a photon there is a computation first to see if the spin of the electron has the correct sign, so that it can or cannot occupy the next energy level. If the computation results in a spin sign that is already present in the higher energy level, then the absorption cannot happen. In addition the "computer" must know the energy level of the higher energy level and must preform a minus operation and a comparison with the photon energy. This is the evidence. How are you going to implement this without assuming some computer?

Or when velocity summing takes place in Special Relativity.

 

Thank you for attempting to reply to our questions.

 

No computation is necessary. Claiming that one is necessary  is like looking around, calling the earth etc 'creation, and then claiming that there is creation therefore there must be a creator.
It is just religeous cant.

As an example consider a 15mm peg. It will either fit into a particular hole or it won't, and whilst it may be sufficient to measure the peg and the hole and then perform a calculation, it is not necessary to do so to find out if the peg will fit the hole. There are other ways.

 

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

It means the particle can't occupy the same space as another particle (fermion). The particles would occupy more than one space points.

Since some particles can indeed interpenetrate, are you now restricting your speculation to only certain particles ?
You OP was pretty general.

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

No, I am claiming each space point can take numbers: sss...stsss...st etc.

Excellent I am glad you have learned something and dropped that previous erroneous speculation.  +1 for that.

 

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The principle is that all of a 2-dimensional spice of space can be copied and compactified into a Riemann Sphere.

Are you claiming that whichever paticular particles you are no including in your discussion are only two dimensional ?

(our) Space is three dimensional.

The mapping of one two dimensional space to another is irrelevant to the 3D properties of space, especially as 3D space cannot be completely described by complex numbers. The complex construction (a + ib) is perfect for such waves as voltage and current but iextending this to 3D as a triple (ai + bj + ck) only works in some circumstances but not all.

 

3 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The computer concatenates an i to the y-coordinate.

Once again our space is 3D

 

 

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The principle is that all of a 2-dimensional spice of space can be copied and compactified into a Riemann Sphere.

What are the physics equations that lead to the circles and dots in your diagram?

[Ghideon]

6 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

How are you going to implement this without assuming some computer?

This is your speculative thread; you need to show why there is an implementation and a requirement for a computer.

 

(Had this been raised as a question instead as part of a speculative claim I could present valid alternatives)

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

As an example consider a 15mm peg. It will either fit into a particular hole or it won't, and whilst it may be sufficient to measure the peg and the hole and then perform a calculation, it is not necessary to do so to find out if the peg will fit the hole. There are other ways.

He's right: there is no computer. It can just be that one wavelength of a photon must fit exactly between the two orbits of the electron and spin comparison is physical.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

What are the physics equations that lead to the circles and dots in your diagram?

m = a number, s = 1, c = white, weak isospin = -1, charge = -1

Edited November 17, 2022 by Willem F Esterhuyse

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

m = a number, s = 1, c = white, weak isospin = -1, charge = -1

I don’t see how you get your diagrams from this. 

[Willem F Esterhuyse]

Actually: charge = -1 = 2(-2/6)+ 2(-1/6) and weak isospin = -1 = -1/2 -1/2

[swansont]

So there’s no actual model, or you aren’t willing to share it.