1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thanks, that was also interesting.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/island-stability-discovering-new-superheavy-elements-4018746

[Imagine Everything]

On 11/3/2024 at 11:41 PM, studiot said:

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/island-stability-discovering-new-superheavy-elements-4018746

Hey Studiot,

The link I highlighted from your good self, has the following text in the first few lines...

The chemical elements beyond lead are radioactive, and they do not have stable isotopes. This means that they will decay into other elements. As their atomic number (the number of protons in their nucleus) increases, the time it takes for them to decay tends to get shorter, going from billions of years to less than one millisecond.

 

The bit I highlighted in green is fascinating to me.

I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread.

The thing I tried to so badly describe is something created to die instantly. The part I highlighted in green seems to say this far better than I could explain.

I think it happens in this 3rd state, which I'm still trying to learn more about and explain better and it seems that this island of stability and the elements leading up to it are created through huge and powerful collisions/supernovae.

Far, far different than my idea & yours is also mathematically proven of course.

Just wanted to say thanks & I'm really wasn't lying when I told you I had no physics education and wasn't borrowing or copying from others before coming here.

The idea I had just appeared to me as I said. I don't know what it means, if it even means anything at all.

But the one thing I would personally like to know is if it is a 'something' or if it isn't. Time will tell I guess, as it always seems to.

That's actually the main reason I approached a couple of forums.

The first physics forum rejected my request to post, you and this forum (I think it might have been Phi?) kindly said yes and I'm very grateful to you all for that.

It has at least allowed me to make some sense of this idea that came to me early August.

Thank you, all of you.

I couldn't sleep last night thinking about these elements that to me are created to die. Awesome!

 

[Imagine Everything]

7 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Hey Studiot,

The link I highlighted from your good self, has the following text in the first few lines...

The chemical elements beyond lead are radioactive, and they do not have stable isotopes. This means that they will decay into other elements. As their atomic number (the number of protons in their nucleus) increases, the time it takes for them to decay tends to get shorter, going from billions of years to less than one millisecond.

 

The bit I highlighted in green is fascinating to me.

I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread.

The thing I tried to so badly describe is something created to die instantly. The part I highlighted in green seems to say this far better than I could explain.

I think it happens in this 3rd state, which I'm still trying to learn more about and explain better and it seems that this island of stability and the elements leading up to it are created through huge and powerful collisions/supernovae.

Far, far different than my idea & yours is also mathematically proven of course.

Just wanted to say thanks & I'm really wasn't lying when I told you I had no physics education and wasn't borrowing or copying from others before coming here.

The idea I had just appeared to me as I said. I don't know what it means, if it even means anything at all.

But the one thing I would personally like to know is if it is a 'something' or if it isn't. Time will tell I guess, as it always seems to.

That's actually the main reason I approached a couple of forums.

The first physics forum rejected my request to post, you and this forum (I think it might have been Phi?) kindly said yes and I'm very grateful to you all for that.

It has at least allowed me to make some sense of this idea that came to me early August.

Thank you, all of you.

I couldn't sleep last night thinking about these elements that  'seem' to me are created to die. Awesome!

 

Should have added 'seem' to the last sentance but couldn't edit.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread.

People have insights all the time.

Most of these come to nothing when a colleague says "Dont' be silly have you considered it weight ?" or somesuch.
Then the thinker has a facepalm moment.

Just sometimes a real inspiration occur.

Here are 3 examples.

I will use these to further develop energy and valency in this thread.

So firstly binding energy.

A nucleon is a name for particles we find in the nucleus of an atom  -  protons and neutrons.

When nucleons club together in certain ways they form nucleus.

The energy that holds the club together is called the binding energy.

Now each element has a differnt binding energy and if we divide each of these energies by the number of nucleons in that particular nucleus we find something interesting.

The binding energy per nucleon is not constant over the range of elements.

In fact there is a definite maximum bining energy per nucleon if we plot a graph over the range of elements.

 

 

The element with the most binding energy per nucleon is Iron (Fe).

I have drawn by hand a red dotted lin on the plot. It is meant to be straight and forms the divide between whether we can get energy from fusing nuclei together on the left or energy from breaking them apart on the right.

 

Second inspiration was at Sicar Point and occurred to the Geologist Hutton many years ago.
He saw layers of rock laid down directly horizontally on top of layers of rock that were vertical.
He recognised the important geological significance of the and defined the Unconformity where things had changed dramatically.

 

Finally we have a time when chemists had analysed many carbon compounds and understood that the valency of carbon is 4 and that of hydrogen 6.
They further understood that carbon atoms would use one or more of these valency 'hooks' to join to other carbon atoms perhaps in 'chain's of carbon atoms instead of using all of them to join to hydrogen atoms.

But there was aproblem with benzene. They couldn't make all the hoohs pair up.

One day, in a dream, the german chemist Kekule saw writhing  snakes and watched one of the snaked grab its own tail, forming a loop.

When he woke up he realised he had solve the benzene mystery.

The sequence below should further help you understanding how valency works and Kekule's dramatic inspiration.

 

 

 

 

[Imagine Everything]

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

People have insights all the time.

Most of these come to nothing when a colleague says "Dont' be silly have you considered it weight ?" or somesuch.
Then the thinker has a facepalm moment.

I know right lol, I have had so many facepalm moments just reading about the things I thought might have been unique to my intial thoughts, just to find out that t wasn't new information by any stretch.

You can't see me obv but yes my face turned a nice bright red.

However, as we have and continue to go through things (I hope) and I understand more or am taught/shown more, I have to say I find it a bit strange? that I seem to have 'seen'? some things that you guys and girls have already mastered and become experts in when my knowledge about physics simply didn't exist. At all. (I do know much more now though, tysm )

Wanted to say too that I've mentioned my education or lack of a few times, not because I'm thick, it was just to illustrate where my knowledge is (or was) at really. Another reason why I find my idea a bit strange.

Please don't take that the wrong way, I am by no means saying "ooh look at me wow wow", no not all. I hope I haven't come across like this.

I just find it strange, kind of supernatural ish?. Eerie perhaps?

Hopefully I'll keep learning more as we go along if you are both / all kind enough to help me.

 

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

So firstly binding energy.

A nucleon is a name for particles we find in the nucleus of an atom  -  protons and neutrons.

When nucleons club together in certain ways they form nucleus.

The energy that holds the club together is called the binding energy.

Now each element has a differnt binding energy and if we divide each of these energies by the number of nucleons in that particular nucleus we find something interesting.

The binding energy per nucleon is not constant over the range of elements.

In fact there is a definite maximum bining energy per nucleon if we plot a graph over the range of elements.

 

 

The element with the most binding energy per nucleon is Iron (Fe).

I have drawn by hand a red dotted lin on the plot. It is meant to be straight and forms the divide between whether we can get energy from fusing nuclei together on the left or energy from breaking them apart on the right.

Thanks to you and Modreds help, I actuall think I moderately understand this.

Immidiately I recognised Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon and Iron and Uranium and also their atomic mass?

Is binding energy the same as Nuclear force or is Nuclear force a type of binding energy?

And if Nuclear force is a type of binding energy, does that mean that Nuclear, weak, Gravitational & Electromagnetical are binding forces?

Or are they just the four fundamental forces and there are even more types of binding forces?

 

Am I also right to understand that left side (not inc Fe) is a graph of our sun nova'ing to it's last state as Iron can't fuse into something as it requires energy and doesn't produce it?

And lastly on this on, Uranium can only come from stella? solar mass >9 -> 20 of our solar mass?

I hope I said that last one right but please let me know the correct way if not.

Ok so I'm struggling a bit with valencey, so if I may, I took the following extract from the following link

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/An_Introduction_to_the_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms_and_Molecules_(Bader)/06%3A_The_Chemical_Bond/6.04%3A_The_Quantum_Mechanical_Explanation_of_Valency

Helium atoms in their ground state do not form a stable diatomic molecule. In fact, helium does not combine with any neutral atom. Its valency, that is, its ability to form chemical bonds with other atoms, is zero.

Does C have a valency because its atomic mass is divided by 3?

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

Finally we have a time when chemists had analysed many carbon compounds and understood that the valency of carbon is 4 and that of hydrogen 6.
They further understood that carbon atoms would use one or more of these valency 'hooks' to join to other carbon atoms perhaps in 'chain's of carbon atoms instead of using all of them to join to hydrogen atoms.

But there was aproblem with benzene. They couldn't make all the hoohs pair up.

One day, in a dream, the german chemist Kekule saw writhing  snakes and watched one of the snaked grab its own tail, forming a loop.

When he woke up he realised he had solve the benzene mystery.

The sequence below should further help you understanding how valency works and Kekule's dramatic inspiration.

That last part where he linked them in a circle is amazing. Truly. I'm guessing no one had ever thought like that before he saw it?

I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question

I am obviously still way out of my depth so forgive the naivety please

Can all atoms, whatever they are (as long as they are attracted) behave in this seemingly logical but also possibly & maybe endlessly random shaped ways?

Oh and I keep forgetting to ask but do all attracted atoms have to be fused together undewr tremendous force such as Novae or hadron colliders?

Can some occur just by simply being near or next to each other?

lololol sorry one more please,

Is fission the merger of atoms into other atomic compostions (are they still atoms? or atomic states when this happens?)

And fusion (using your diagram definitions) is the release of energy.

Have I been saying fusion incorrectly too up to now?

Edited November 6 by Imagine Everything
edited

[studiot]

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

The element with the most binding energy per nucleon is Iron (Fe).

I have drawn by hand a red dotted lin on the plot. It is meant to be straight and forms the divide between whether we can get energy from fusing nuclei together on the left or energy from breaking them apart on the right.

I owe you a big apology as I got it wrong on the plot, but correct in the text did you notice ?

 

Fission and fusion are the wrong way round on the plot.

 

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

That last part where he linked them in a circle is amazing. Truly. I'm guessing no one had ever thought like that before he saw it?

I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question

I am obviously still way out of my depth so forgive the naivety please

Can all atoms, whatever they are (as long as they are attracted) behave in this seemingly logical but also possibly & maybe endlessly random shaped ways?

Oh and I keep forgetting to ask but do all attracted atoms have to be fused together undewr tremendous force such as Novae or hadron colliders?

Can some occur just by simply being near or next to each other?

lololol sorry one more please,

Is fission the merger of atoms into other atomic compostions (are they still atoms? or atomic states when this happens?)

And fusion (using your diagram definitions) is the release of energy.

Have I been saying fusion incorrectly too up to now?

See above for fission and fusion.

Both can release energy for the right reaction, but elements from iron to beyond uranium need to break apart (fission) to release energy. Elements from Hydrogen to iron need to join together (fusion) to release energy.

Conversely it take energy input to split a nucleus smaller than iron and energy to fuse together nuclei larger than iron.

Don't forget that it is the nuclei which break up or fuse together.

I will let Mordred tell you about the cosmology of fission and fusion.

It used to be thought that only carbon could form these long chains, but recent advances in Chemistry have discovered that other elements such as sulphur and silicon can also perform in this way.

 

No, no one could solve the problem before kekule.

 

[Imagine Everything]

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

I owe you a big apology as I got it wrong on the plot, but correct in the text did you notice ?

 

Fission and fusion are the wrong way round on the plot.

lol that image had me in stitches

Thats actually cool tbh, I picked up on the definitions in the graph and questioned it, so that I would learn.

And lol I read it and think it just made sense as the Kahn Academy lectures were ringing in my head about H fusing into He & He fusing into (crap can't remember without looking, must watch the lectures again lol, going to take a guess at) Neutrons?

I remember he said igniting then changed his mind to fusion, hence the question.

Sometimes I really do talk too much....

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

It used to be thought that only carbon could form these long chains, but recent advances in Chemistry have discovered that other elements such as sulphur and silicon can also perform in this way.

That is cool and immediately my mind starts wondering if more things can be made this way or even indeed in a much vaster more complex scale, chained/linked configuration.

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

No, no one could solve the problem before kekule.

What an interesting brain he had to have had to dream the answer. hmm

On a seperate note, I'm curious

@studiot What does vibration mean to you? How do you define it yourself? Do you understand it as an entity? A motion? A massless energy wave?

 

@MordredWhat does vibration mean to you? How do you define it yourself? Do you understand it as an entity? A motion?

A massless energy wave?

 

It'd be nice to hear both your thoughts on this please.

Thanks as always

 

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question

Almost forgot, this is related to the vibration question I asked you both.

With all the collisions, fusions, reppelling and so on, does this cause and or create vibrations and possibly different colliding vibrations, vibrations that could also repell so on and on.?

Is that a stupid/naive question?

Do vibrations have boundary conditions?

I must go now now, my head feels a bit

Have a good night

Edited November 6 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

Vibration means any oscillating state. For example a spring in motion is a form of vibration. Sound waves generate vibrations.

Fusion in Cosmology occurs during stsr formation but on a cosmological scale doesn't occur. The early atoms such as deuterium, hydrogen and lithium will form once temperatures cool down sufficiently.

Now that Studiot went through the chemistry aspects let's try an example of why you need cooling.

Take a proton it wants to have an electron in orbit due to charge. However the universe at high temperatures has tons of other particles moving about.

So say the proton captures an electron. Now another particle comes along and knocks that electron out of orbit. The particle that does this is irrelevant. The only requirement is that it delivers enough force ( in energy equivalence 13.5 ev.)

The above is an example of ionization. Cosmic rays can for example ionize neutral hydrogen in the same manner. If the Cosmic rays produce 13.5 ev the electron in the outer shell can get removed from  the atom.

In terms of fusion you require pressure and temperature.  To reach ignition you must meet the Lawson criteria which will vary depending on the composition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

 

Unfortunately most decent articles on nucleosythesis gets rather high level mathematics for example

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~nlanger/siu_web/nucscript/Nucleo.pdf

But you will notice the article describes different binding energies for several different atoms.

[Imagine Everything]

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~nlanger/siu_web/nucscript/Nucleo.pdf

Hey Mordred,

Thanks for the link, I got to page 23 I think and yeah didn't understand much of the diagrams or maths as expected lol, no disrespect intended. I'm just not as clever or physics educated as your good self/selves.

I asked about vibration for a reason. Thanks for answering it however I was kind of after how it might mean whatever it meant to you, on a deep level maybe, I'm not sure.

I'll tell you why.

In my idea or whatever it is, the 'thing' I see as being integral to the whole idea is so small so almost nothing (possibly even the remnants of something created & dying/decaying so fast, that thee only thing left was it's..hmm..shadow? echo? vibration? I don't truly know, I still have a lot to learn and think about.

But allow me to put forward a later part of this idea please, I won't annoy you with everything inbetween, not just yet anyway  

So humans...Sometimes in my personal experience and from others also telling me during my life, I, we have met or seen someone who I, we have an instant disliking or liking towards. Whether it's on tv, radio, online or in real life without actually meeting that person.

I say in my idea, (though I would say I ponder now) that people have a quantum entanglement, a connection on a very deep and atomic, quantum or maybe even sub quantum level. (don't worry, I'm not going back to using SQEP lol)

I ponder if we are indeed connected by this 'something' I can't properly explain right now and our bodies, our atoms, our energies, our whole being including all the various boundary conditions, fields and possible? quantum tunneling? and everything inside it is tuning into this 'wavelength?'/ energy between us and other people and whilst we don't understand it immediately, we simply 'feel' it throughout our body ) before our brains turn that or those feelings into understanding.

And on the same thought, if someone is happy, I ponder if our bodies 'energy resonation' is in sink with itself.

When someone is unhappy, maybe their 'energy resonation' is out of sink with itself.

I call it a resonation because I have no better word for it right now. But it might perhaps have something to do with vibration. It also might not lmao.

I wonder if (right now this is where my thoughts are, it might change with more knowledge) there might be a kind of vibration field. I read that the Higgs bosun was more of a vibration than a soup idea due to the soup idea going against certain laws.

I also read in another article here the other day, in a reply by Studiot in the thread 'A photon twist in space' something fascinating.

My typically creative mind started trying to make sense of& relate it to what I am talking about in this thread.

• • 8.1k

 

Posted October 31

Quote

A photon as a 'twist' in space

 

An electronics engineer ?

Well have you seen this article ?

 

What is an Electron  ?

A new model: the phase locked cavity.

 

R C Jennison PH D Bsc FIEE FRAS FInstP FRSA

~~Electronics Laboratories University of Kent at Canterbury.

Wireless World June 1979 pages 42 to 47

 

There has also been mathematical work( By Drazin) by regarding a photon as a solitary wave or soliton.

 

Here are the first and last pages of Jennison's article.

 

In this, it was talked about what creates the electron, what lives below quantum physics (thats how I understood it anyway, perhaps I am wrong) but again it got me thinking...

So, I wonder atm if we all and everything else, 'live' withing a vibration field. A field of all fields created by and merged withall other fields.

And yes, I know how big heaat sounds, especially from someone with my little knowledge. I really don't mean it to sound that way but I have to ask.

From your BB & CMB  expertise pov, would it be possible that the universe vibrated into existance?

Is it possible that other fields could be part of a larger vibrating field with fluctuations and excitements due to the chaotic nature of order.

In my original post in this thread, I'm really really trying to bolt down a single 'thing' that is not only constantly created, dies very fast but also produces.

Can vibrational interactions create different energy fields? Or even cause them to simply exist?

In my head a vibration is simply a movement rather than a mass, or a speed, or temperature etc. It just is'.

 

I'm going to stop there, I have so many many questions...

Perhaps I have made no sense at all and you won't even want to answer this madness lol but I guess I'll never know unless I ask.

I'll try not to ask any more questions for now & re read some of the earlier replies you guys have given me, I seem to understand them a bit more each time I do.

Thanks for listening, & reading what an ever aging old fart has to say I appreiciate it.

I will read through your link too, probably at the weekend whether I understand it or not. It is all useful to me. I eat it up like ketchup and I have always loved ketchup.

Mmm apple pie and ketchup hahaha, I joke but some people that know me, wouldn't put that past me.

I haven't mentioned it but I did take note of your ionisation description as well, ty for that.

Edited November 7 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

Connecting the term vibration to the harmonic oscillator is perfectly fine. After work I will step you into how that harmonic oscillator is used to formulate into the creation/annihilation operators used in QFT that leads to particle production.

Your picking up skills at a good pace so +1 on that.

 

Edited November 7 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Your picking up skills at a good pace so +1 on that.

I am flattered and humbled by this Thank you. I still have a lot to learn.

I must also say that your words are a reflection of both yours and Studiots patience and help.

So if I could, I would +1 you both too.

 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

So, I wonder atm if we all and everything else, 'live' withing a vibration field. A field of all fields created by and merged withall other fields.

 

 

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Connecting the term vibration to the harmonic oscillator is perfectly fine. After work I will step you into how that harmonic oscillator is used to formulate into the creation/annihilation operators used in QFT that leads to particle production.

Your picking up skills at a good pace so +1 on that.

 

 

Perhaps I should offer a translation guide in advance ?

As you know I am trying to connect theory with everday experience and also keep looking back at what we have already done.

Vibration, Oscillation and Wave Motion.

 

When we talk about vibration we usually mean the whole (or most of) object or system shaking in some way.

For example

The reed in a reeded musical instrument such as a clarinet vibrates when you blow on it.

Depending upon your skill this may produce a pleasant sound or a scratchy unpleasant sound.

So there the same object or system can undergo different types or modes of vibration.

Sometimes we talk about a car shuddering and shaking and vibrating as is passes over a bumpy road.
This type of vibration may vary considerably in the pattern of movement as compared to the more regular and predictable pattern of the clarinet reed.

Vibrations are normally subject to a 'forcing function' that makes the the object or system follow a particular pattern of vibration.
And the vibration normally ceases with the ceasing of the forcing function.

 

When we talkabout an oscillation we normally mean a much smoother more rhythmic activity such as the swinging to an fro of a pendulum.
Here the same pattern of activity is repeated over and over again and called oscillation.
Further, rather than a continuous forcing function being applied only a single impuls is given to start the oscillation off and perhaps subsequnet small impulses at suitable regular intervals.

Remember my teach with the knotted handkerchief ?

The system is then oscillating at what is known as a natural frequency and as already described this is called resonance.

A particular feature of this type of activity is that the oscillation occure regularly about a mean or fixed point (think of the pendulum)

Cue Mordred and his Simple Harmonic Oscillator.

 

Now another simple harmonic oscillator is a weight suspended on a string.

If we hang one such spring oscillator on a fairly taught horizontal string, it will just oscillate up and down after its initial impulse.

If we hang several such oscillators on the same line, like washing on a line, and just activate one as an oscillator we will find that the up and down oscillation will spread to the other weighted springs and soon they will all be going up and down together.

This is resonance in action.

 

Now we have transferred wenergy from pour initial oscillator to its neighbour and thence to its neighbour and so on.

This is a form of motion (of energy in this case) sometimes called transport of energy.

Wave motion is such a tranport device and it transports energy (and sometimes mass and sometimes momentum) from place to place.
Wave motion can be regarded as a series of 'coupled' oscillators hand on the impuls from one to the enxt like the washing line weighted springs.

 

Maybe this will help with what Mordred has to tell you.

 

 

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Perhaps I should offer a translation guide in advance ?
 

excellent plan and saves me some time as well.

Lets start with the spring example Studiot supplied. You may recall earlier I stated Energy is the ability to perform work. Well when it comes to mechanical energy you can seperate two distinct ways a spring can perform work. Via its Potential energy which is the energy due to the springs position and its kinetic energy the work the spring can perform due to its momentum. These are described under Hookes Law, so the total mechanical energy of our system must include both PE and KE energy. To perform work a system requires a force. 

so the total mechanical energy of the spring is the combination of PE and KE

\[E_M=E_{ke}+E_{PE}\]

work is  \(W=(force *distance)\) or \(W=fx\) now lets focus on just the PE portion as per Hooke's law the work on a spring due to PE is called its elastic potential energy. So when the spring is unstretched \(F_S=0\). When the spring is stretched the force increases \(F_S=kx\). The average applied force  over the distance " x "is \(\bar{F}=0+kx/2\)

or \(\bar{F}_{average force}=\frac{1}{2}kx\) where k is the spring constant.

if you substitute this back to the works equation above

\(W=Fx\) gives average work \(W=\bar{F} x\) including the spring constant k \(W=\frac{1}{2} k x\) gives work as 

\[W=\frac{1}{2}kx^2\]

Here is a Khan university article showing graphs of the above.

Kinetic energy is due to the springs movement ie its velocity 

\[E_k=\frac{1}{2} mv^2\]

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/hookes-law/a/what-is-elastic-potential-energy

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator Section

Now recall I described the harmonic oscillator as a spring ? we can apply those equations above but we have a couple of details to cover first. Now in QM and QFT we look at the momentum terms these momentum terms has quantum equivalence of the PE and KE terms used in the spring

total energy using momentum terms of a particle is 

energy momentum relation

\[E^2=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_o c^2)^2}\]

zero point energy of harmonic oscillator

\[E=\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

so for kinetic energy the kinetic energy in momentum terms is \[E_k=\frac{P}{2M}\] where M is the mass of object and P is the momentum. So the kinetic energy using the energy momentum relation above is the energy without the mass term \(m_oc^2\) but just its momentum term \(pc)^2\)

Now the next caveat is in QM and QFT both are what is termed canonical treatments in math speak. What this really means is its quantized. Now we have two Operators in QM position and momentum.

\[[\hat{x},\hat{p}]=i\]

i is just an integer x in this form is the position complex conjugate (don't worry about that atm it means it depends on two relations not just one) and the Momentum complex conjugate. All operators are complex conjugates but that's another detail for later on. I'm adding them so you learn to recognize what these symbols mean. Now in QFT we make the field the Operator to include the four momentum of GR.  (relativistic). 

so in non relativistic QM the harmonic oscillator becomes

\[\hat{H}=\frac{\hat{p^2}{2m}+\frac{M}\omega^2}{2}\hat{x}^2\]

where H is the Hamilton Operator (details for another time you need more math skills in vector associations). We can get two new Operators. These operators are non hermitean (again later on lesson) called the annihilation and creation operators. respectively below

\[\hat{a}=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{2}}(\hat{x}+\frac{i}{m\omega}\hat{P})\]

\[\hat{a}^\dagger=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{2}}(\hat{x}-\frac{i}{m\omega}\hat{P})\]

given that \([\hat{x},\hat{P}]=i\) gives \([\hat{a},\hat{a}^\dagger]=1\)

the Hamilton takes on a useful form

\[\hat{H}=\omega(\hat{N}+\frac{1}{2}\]

with eugenstates

\[\hat{H}|n\rangle=\omega(n+\frac{1}{2}|n\rangle)\]

this gives the energy of the state as

\[E_n=\omega(n+\frac{1}{2})\]

where \(|n\rangle\) is the number states ie the number of particles states. Where the annihilation operator drops \(|n\rangle\) by one and the creation operator increases \(|n\rangle\) by one (ladder Operators).

the above for QFT portion can be found in quantum field theory Demystified chapter 6. by David McMahon.

So from the above I showed the PE energy relations of the harmonic oscillator by describing the PE relations of a spring. Then explained how energy and Work are related and Force is included.

then took the Spring equations and QM/QFT quantization for its Operators to get the creation and annihilation operators to describe how the Quantum harmonic oscillator can produce particles using the Eugen-states of the Hamilton  by it non Hermitian creation and annihilation operators.

Those equations can also be used to determine the particle NUMBER density of a field via the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics in QFT equivalence (MUCH later TOPIC).

Now think back to @studiot last post where one spring can resonate with another and place a spring at every coordinate. Your field is constantly undergoing oscillations due to resonance and the above action.

 

now common symbols

\(\vec{x}\)=vector

\(\bar{x}\)=average

\(\hat{x}\)=complex vector conjugate

\(\hat{a}\)=annihilation operator (complex conjugate)

\(\hat{a}^\dagger\)=creation operator

what I haven't shown is anti particles which is

\(\hat{b}\)=annihilation for anti particles

\(\hat{b}^\dagger\)=creation operator for antiparticles

Now Recall those Feymann diagrams Operators are the external lines the propagator is the internal wavy lines. Think of propagator as the mediation between the Operators

 

where Real particles are defined by the Operators and the offshell mediator gauge bosons are the propagators 

Edited Friday at 04:34 AM by Mordred

[Mordred]

Another khan University lesson I would like you to watch is constructive and destructive interference.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/mechanical-waves-and-sound/standing-waves/v/constructive-and-destructive-interference#:~:text=Constructive interference happens when two,they cancel each other out.

This will help to understand Elastic vs inelastic scatterings when two particles meet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_scattering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_scattering

the first link will also help understand wave resonance.

https://juddy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Notes-4.1.3.pdf

HINT the mechanical elastic PE terms above apply ie a crystal resonating with a frequency those resonations of the atoms will follow the same equations of motion (sound waves are mechanical energy)

take k for spring constant now replace with binding energy via the coupling constant of a field. In those Feymann integrals "g"

for the EM field g is the fine structure constant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

for the Strong force its

\[\alpha_s=\frac{g^2}{4\pi}\]

Higgs couplings is quite a bit more complex

Higgs electroweak couplings below

\[(\frac{g}{2}\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{W}+\frac{\acute{g}}{2} B)\phi_0\]

@studiot mentioned another form of mechanical energy that of the pendulum those relations are also useful in QM/QFT it is another way to understand harmonic motion 

hint a wave has two component or rather polarities Longitudinal and transverse waves. Longitudinal is also called traceless in higher treatments. The pendulum and spring equations of motion will be necessary to understand both

Also going to prove useful to understand the E and B fields for EM field.

(in regards to the other thread you included on twisted photons) ie

Maxwell equations and Lorentz force for E and B fields.\

I would like you to consider the following statement. All physics theories involve equations of motion. So the best stepping stone starting point is to learn the classical systems example mechanical energy above fluidic systems gaseous systems. etc.

those equations of motion use vectors including the inner product and cross product provided earlier this thread. So to master any physics theory, master the equations of motion and learn how each theory describes them.

Edited Friday at 06:04 AM by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

Hellooo

 

Ok so pfft finally I get some more time to go through this and watch the lectures, thank you.

I'll repost after I've read through what you said and watched them a bit later.

On another note...

I have to get this out of my head, it's been building up all day and perhaps it will better help you to see what I'm trying to describe, whether it's right or wrong, no idea. Still trying to figure it out, I obviously hit on something with the vibration question

So this hmmm...I'm going to call it a sub quantum thingy lol. Sorry, bet you guys hate me for that. I really don't know what to call it. It just won't leave my head alone. It nags at me constantly.

I see it as being created to die inside the 3rd state between 2 seperate boundary conditions belonging to 2 seperate states.

Right smack bang in the middle of the 2. Happening all the time and the more states/boundary conditons there are, the more of this SQ thingy there are.

It's not just that either, I envision it as the connection between people, energy, mass..just everything and everywhere (yes the entire universe)(you'll hate me for this Modred but maybe it was there before the BB, maybe it was part of the BB or will or has even cause/ed it to repeat itself?) I see it as being part of if not DM itself (I know, feel free to shout at me writing this, it's so bizarre, yet...) well hopefully you can prove me right or wrong eventually.

I really don't mean to sound like I've discovered the answer to DM or the universe, (knowing me, I have probably only discovered my imagination is bigger than I thought) but man that really would be something indeed, and I am very sorry for sounding like I have if I have, I don't think that and I mean no disrespect to you or the science community.

I see this 'thingy' as so small it might be a Zero energy 'thingy' Have I got that right? Something that exists but doesn't interact and has no motion or attraction?.

If it's created in the manner I've seen, I see it as pushing itself into space (literally?) that is already filled with these 'thing'y's. And because of that it has the knock on effect of moving more of it's type outwards in all directions. Possibly with enough of it, it causes things to expand such as DM. Maybe it even has remnants of information in it too? Not 1's and 0's but something. A tiny tiny tiny eenie weenie small something...

Lol how bad am I that I go on a science forum with experts as wise and clever as you all are and I call something a thingy. Feel free to shout at this post, if everything is truly connected this way, I'm sure I'll hear or feel it somehow .

Possibly it causes different rates of expansion (when there's enough of it & I'm talking about numbers I couldn't even imagine or perhaps even research) due to amount being created in certain situations or areas.

Aaaaggh I don't know but it is bugging the hell out of me lol and I had to write this and get it out.

I also have a couple of questions please...

Has anyone in science looked at DM as an ocean? And after watching a lecture recently about expansion rates, could the different rates of expansion be seen as currents like here on earth with the sea?

Could the currents be analogous to DE and the ocean analogous to DM? Or would DM be more like a Tsunami?

I'll leave it there, time to read and watch some lectures and learn some more. Learn some proper science that doesn't define anything as a 'thingy' (well..maybe except for my imagination)

[Mordred]

8 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Has anyone in science looked at DM as an ocean? And after watching a lecture recently about expansion rates, could the different rates of expansion be seen as currents like here on earth with the sea?

Could the currents be analogous to DE and the ocean analogous to DM? Or would DM be more like a Tsunami?

I'll leave it there, time to read and watch some lectures and learn some more. Learn some proper science that doesn't define anything as a 'thingy' (well..maybe except for my imagination)

 

All particle fields in Cosmology have an equation of state association this is analogous to thermodynamic hydrostatic fluid  equations that includes DM even though we don't know the cause of DM we can model and determine its equation of state.

w=0 meaning it has no pressure term.

[Imagine Everything]

On 11/7/2024 at 10:41 PM, studiot said:

When we talkabout an oscillation we normally mean a much smoother more rhythmic activity such as the swinging to an fro of a pendulum.
Here the same pattern of activity is repeated over and over again and called oscillation.
Further, rather than a continuous forcing function being applied only a single impuls is given to start the oscillation off and perhaps subsequnet small impulses at suitable regular intervals.

Remember my teach with the knotted handkerchief ?

The system is then oscillating at what is known as a natural frequency and as already described this is called resonance.

A particular feature of this type of activity is that the oscillation occure regularly about a mean or fixed point (think of the pendulum)

This is a really good definition, thanks. I was picturing the metal ball chain where once set in motion, the energy is transfered from the end ball on one side before getting to and making the other end ball swing out and back in and doingthe same endlessly unti it is stopped by someone. Is that the same thing?

Yes I do remember the hankerchief/banana drawing.

Resonance..very interesting.

So oscillation - steady vibration repeated repeatedly. And that is a natural frequence.

So I guess that makes sense if I may, as people won't always breathe the same breath into a clarinet. Not so steady.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

All particle fields in Cosmology have an equation of state association

Yes! Thank you. This helps.

I must admit, I often wonder how you folks have even been able to understand the things you do when they all must be so tangled up with each other constantly.

I'm guessing thats why they have super sized multi story computer sheds at the LHC.

Still trying to picture that...

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

thermodynamic hydrostatic fluid  equations

That sounds fascinating. I'll take a look after I get through your previous post. Thanks

[Mordred]

take a hypothetical box and place an ensemble of particles in the box.

the box boundaries is the boundary conditions equivalence in the mathematics. Calculate how much force is delivered by the momentum term of the particle on the box boundaries. That's how the equations of state are determined ie the pressure term.

matter has low momentum so exerts no pressure radiation has high momentum so it exerts pressure

Edited Sunday at 04:59 PM by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

On 11/7/2024 at 10:41 PM, studiot said:

Now we have transferred wenergy from pour initial oscillator to its neighbour and thence to its neighbour and so on.

This is a form of motion (of energy in this case) sometimes called transport of energy.

Wave motion is such a tranport device and it transports energy (and sometimes mass and sometimes momentum) from place to place.
Wave motion can be regarded as a series of 'coupled' oscillators hand on the impuls from one to the enxt like the washing line weighted springs.

 

Is that this, I tried to describe it but not sure if it made sense. Also found out it had a name, Newtons Cradle.

Hmm the things I don't know lol...

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

take a hypothetical box and place an ensemble of particles in the box.

the box boundaries is the boundary conditions equivalence in the mathematics. Calculate how much force is delivered by the momentum term of the particle on the box boundaries. That's how the equations of state are determined ie the pressure term.

So would this be a predetermined probabilistic probability of +or- leeway or would you know exactly what that pressure is if you could measure every field interaction and particle within? Did I say that right?

Can you even do that? Is it possible to unscramble that possible kind of data? (in my head I picture that as a lot of particles)

On 11/8/2024 at 3:18 AM, Mordred said:

EM=Eke+EPE

Whats the initial E represent please Mordred?

Is is Electron Field? Energy?

Or is it E = Energy and the bit after is the type of energy?

Em Mechanical energy

Eke Kinetic energy

EPE Potential energy

Edited Sunday at 05:07 PM by Imagine Everything
redefined question

[Mordred]

energy for E

yes its a box with lots of particles hence its a total summation of hitting each box edge ie a probability function of number density striking the surface.

\[E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(m_o c^2)^2}\]

start with 1 particle first to learn the math then determine the number density after then do your summation is the steps to learn this ( hint I already provided the formulas for number density above)

Edit correction applied to above formula 

Edited Monday at 04:06 PM by Mordred

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

This is a really good definition, thanks. I was picturing the metal ball chain where once set in motion, the energy is transfered from the end ball on one side before getting to and making the other end ball swing out and back in and doingthe same endlessly unti it is stopped by someone. Is that the same thing?

Yes I do remember the hankerchief/banana drawing.

Resonance..very interesting.

So oscillation - steady vibration repeated repeatedly. And that is a natural frequence.

So I guess that makes sense if I may, as people won't always breathe the same breath into a clarinet. Not so steady.

Did you also catch the bit about the forcing function  ?

A vibration can 'bang between hard stops, for example a car bonnet or a door or other fixed panel can bang in the wind again its restraints, alternately hitting one then the other.

On oscillation reached the end of its travel naturally as it runs out of one energy (the energy of motion or kinetic energy) because the oscillation is transferring the KE to potential energy.

In a system with not losses that cycle is repeated endlessly  PE  → KE → PE → KE......

In a system with energy losses, often due to friction,  (called damping) the energy gradually leaves the system.

 

Newton's cradle is not relly a simple oscillation it is actually quite complicated as one side is free to go as far as it likes, but the other side has a nearly hard stop.

[Mordred]

Here is a handy article showing how phase and amplitude has similarities and equivalence in mathematics to the pendulum simple harmonic motion.

https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/chapter23.pdf

as mentioned its an invaluable lesson 

[Imagine Everything]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

energy for E

yes its a box with lots of particles hence its a total summation of hitting each box edge ie a probability function of number density striking the surface.

 

E2=(pc2)+(moc2)2−−−−−−−−−−−−√

 

start with 1 particle first to learn the math then determine the number density after then do your summation is the steps to learn this ( hint I already provided the formulas for number density above)

Yikes, I'm still trying to understand what Fs is. Sorry I don't have a physics keyboard so I can't write it the way you do.

I am struggling a lot with the maths to be honest, or rather the symobls and what they mean. But I'm guessing once I do (if I can) the equasions might then bewilder me a bit.

Its going to take a while eh...I will try though.

Speaking of bewilderment, how on earth do you fellas remember all this

[Mordred]

F is force given in Newtons which is the amount of force to accelerate a 1 kg mass 1 meter per second squared.

\[f=ma\]

https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/chapter07.pdf

it becomes easier to learn complex physics by first mastering basic classical physics

 

Edited Sunday at 05:24 PM by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

F is force given in Newtons which is the amount of force to accelerate a 1 kg mass 1 meter per second squared.

 

f=ma

 

https://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/chapter07.pdf

it becomes easier to learn complex physics by first mastering basic classical physics

 

mmm I have no doubt. I feel like a fish trying to swim in clay, you could tell me this in Portugese and it wouldn't confuse me any less but like I said, I will try. It's just going to take a while I guess.

Thanks Mordred as always, you too Studiot.

Edited Sunday at 05:28 PM by Imagine Everything