Klaynos Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 ROFL, that is just SO funny! now I really need to check swansont's results, so BEER TIME!
Edtharan Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Well you see the quarks kinda act like batteries.They suck up a whole lot of energy and heat and light,and causes them to spin.They spin in a 3D way(kinda like the 3 rings that spin on eachother)this will wrap up all the dimensions and cause a dent in space kinda like einstein showed. Well not really. Spin (in the quantum mechanical sense) is not like the spin of a top (or water down a plug hole). It is more akin to charge than "actual" rotation. Spin the QM sense can be quite weird too. Some particle require spins of more than 360 degrees (some even with 720 degrees) to reach the same orientation as when you started. So QM spin is not the same as "water down a plug hole" or a basketball kind of spin. They don't "Suck up" heat. Increasing the energy of a fundamental particle does not alter its spin state at all (except for maybe changing it from spin up to spin down), but this doesn't "store" that energy like a battery does. So you analogies in this are completely wrong. Also for them to "spin in a 3D way(kinda like the 3 rings that spin on eachother)" they would need absolute positions. If you know the absolute positions of a particle, then you can not know the energy/momentum that it has. So this would mean that you could not determine that they were also moving in a ring as that would also require you to know their momentum absolutely (and it is impossible to know both absolutely). Usually they are drawn on paper that way because it is useful for our conceptualizing of them (as we have nothing in the macro scale world that even comes close to what these objects really are like - so it would be impossible to draw them as they really are). The best way to think of the fundamental particles are like a smeared out and blurred cloud. The best analogy I have heard for the disparity of the position/momentum for fundamental particles is of a pool table and a camera. If you imagine a pool/snooker table with balls whizzing around on it and the only way you can see anything on the table is to use a camera and take photos of it. If you set the camera for a slow shutter speed you can (say 1 second) you can get a picture of the table that shows the paths (but smeared out as the balls moved during that second) the balls took as the moved on the table. However, because the balls were at all points on the smeared paths within that image, you can't specify an exact position of any ball. However if you then change the shutter speed on the camera so that the camera has a fast shutter speed, then you could take another picture of the table. In this image you would have a very good idea where each of the balls are, but because the balls did not move much during this time the shtter was open, you can not determine the direction and speed that the balls are moving in. So you can either measure the position of the balls (fast shutter speed) or the momentum (slow shutter speed) of the balls, but you can not measure both at the same time (ie: the camera can not have both a fast and a slow shutter speed at the same time). In reality it is much more than this as it is a fundamental property of the particles interaction with other particles (that which makes up the detector and the rest of the universe) than do do with a camera's shutter speed.
Dogmaf Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 I thought a picture might be worth a thousand words.
insane_alien Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 you don't know the current theories describing the structure of the atom do you? electrons do NOT orbit in rings.
EvoN1020v Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 you don't know the current theories describing the structure of the atom do you? electrons do NOT orbit in rings. insane_alien is right. Electrons do not go in perfect orbit circles. It's just an idea how electrons actually works.
Dogmaf Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 Ok look,The rings do not represent electrons.Have you ever seen those rides at fairs that people get into,they consist of 3 rings that spin on eachothers axis,and it spins them around?Well imagine if there was a ball inside the center of all the rings.If the ball's rotation was affected by the motion of the rings,what would it look like? Even the symbol for the forum has 3 rings.
Klaynos Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Ok look,The rings do not represent electrons.Have you ever seen those rides at fairs that people get into,they consist of 3 rings that spin on eachothers axis,and it spins them around?Well imagine if there was a ball inside the center of all the rings.If the ball's rotation was affected by the motion of the rings,what would it look like? Even the symbol for the forum has 3 rings. You what? The symbol for the forums is somewhat ironic as it is a well known incorrect theory of atoms.
insane_alien Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 the forum symbol was picked cos it looks cool. not whether it has any significant and accurate scientific merit. there are no rings around atoms. you sound like you've picked up a kids 'Big Book of Science' and taken it for cutting edge and 100% accuracy. seriously, go buy a REAL quantum mechanics book or even a low level chemistry book would suffice to shatter your rather simplistic and erroneous view of atoms.
Edtharan Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 Ok look,The rings do not represent electrons.Have you ever seen those rides at fairs that people get into,they consist of 3 rings that spin on eachothers axis,and it spins them around?Well imagine if there was a ball inside the center of all the rings.If the ball's rotation was affected by the motion of the rings,what would it look like? Even the symbol for the forum has 3 rings. Ahh, ok I know what you are talking about. I have been on that kind of ride myself (I even operated one for a while). What I don't see is how having a model of an atom with the "spin" of the particles represented like that matches what we know of partical physics. As I said before, the "spin" of a particle is not like the spin of a ball. It is more like "Charge" on the particle (which can be either spin up or spin down) This spin is not movement in the classical sense (like a ball) and it is not in 3D (so there would not be a need for 3 rings in the first place - one set would be enough). A particle (like a quark) can not store energy in it spin (it can't spin faster for instance). You can change it's direction, but it doesn't slow down and then change direction (like a ball). They also use a term for quarks call "Flavour" but this does not mean that they actually have a taste. When scientists were discovering about quarks, they need terms to describe the properties of these objects. These properties have no analogue in the world that we know and understand, but are mathematical properties of the theory. Spin is just one of these properties. They do not literally "spin" as we would understand it and if your theory is describing some property of the particles that is literally spinning, then you are not describing the property that is currently called "Spin" of the fundamental particles.
YT2095 Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 the bit that`s Really going to bake his noodle is Gravitomagnetics! we know that a spinning body will exert a slight Twisting of gravity in space-time, but it`s actualy 17 orders of magnitude greater if that spinning body is a super conductor taken to a low enough temp to form Cooper pairs of electrons
insane_alien Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 well, if there were no cooper pairs then it wouldn't be a superconductor
insane_alien Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 yeah i know. just felt like being difficult
YT2095 Posted November 9, 2006 Posted November 9, 2006 actualy Photons develop mass inside a super conductor at its critical temp, well the same applies to Gravitons too. I think he`ll enjoy trying to work that one out the kitchen sink
Dogmaf Posted November 9, 2006 Author Posted November 9, 2006 Ok now I see what your saying!So what about Spin angular momentum,or Spin quantum number,and Spin magnetic quantum number.The particals dont really spin?But If you were going to wrap up all the dimensions(how ever many there are)I would have to assume a partical Somewhere inside the Protons and Neutrons that have the ability to spin in a way to wrap the dimensions up into a ball. I perfomed a small experiment just to see if I was right.I took a peice of strechy material like nylon or something,and drew a square along the edges of the material.I then took the eraser of a pencil and put it right in the middle and started to twist it.The square started to bend inward in the same shape as if there was a dent in space.But space is not a 2D fabric.So if I were to twist the eraser in a certain way I could create a 3D dented sphere in space,gravity.
Dogmaf Posted November 10, 2006 Author Posted November 10, 2006 Im really sorry I got you guys into this,its just Ive been looking for gravity 8 Years and this is the only thing I can think of.I might as well give up for now.Maybe someone else will understand me.Ill just let you guys figure it out.
Edtharan Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Im really sorry I got you guys into this,its just Ive been looking for gravity 8 Years and this is the only thing I can think of.I might as well give up for now.Maybe someone else will understand me.Ill just let you guys figure it out. Don't give up. Science works because people are willing to question what is already believed to be true. You speculations are, therefore a necessary part of good science. The other part of this is that if evidence disproves a theory, then you either come up with a new theory, or change the current one to fir the new data. So keep up with the questioning and just re-examine your theory and try to get it to fit the data that has already been collected about subatomic physics. Some of the most important discoveries in science have come about due to the failure of a theory (the Michelson-Moorly experiment comes to mind). Even the theories of gravitation that Issac Newton came up with have been proven to be wrong.
swansont Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Newton wasn't wrong, per se, just incomplete. Newtonian calculations are still very useful. Bu any new theory that comes along has to explain and predict everything that we already observe. It is not likely that current theories would be replaced, rather that the new information would be appended. e.g. making gravitation compatible with quantum theory isn't going to suddenly make Newtonian gravity and relativity wrong, it will simply (well, probably not simply) explain gravity on a scale where QM is important.
mhardin104 Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 This is another way to consider gravity that seems to answer many questions. AEons..…. William B. Luton as documented in his Paper "The Pressureon / Forceon Concept of Reality" suggests the following concept: The early Universe existed as randomly moving Dynamic Energy Particles "AEons". Eventually every possible combination and pattern of these randomly moving particles was generated. The stable Photon Wave, in harmony with the frequency of the Universe, emerged from this random chaos by chance. The Photon wave is a spiraling pattern in the Universal Field of Dynamic AEther constructed of AEther particles called AEons. Below is an upgraded version of of the subject "AEons" published on the PhysOrg Quantum Physics forum. AEons are….... AEons are AEther-ons…….. AEons are Energy packets…….. AEons movement results in time…….. AEons are the AEther of the Universe…….. AEons move constantly at the speed of light……... AEons are cause and effect.-(Energy and Matter)….…. AEons are tightly spaced expanding packets of Energy…….. AEons occupy finite space are hyper elastic and have no shape…….. AEons are spiraling electromagnetic fields surrounding Photon Waves…….. AEons are spiraling patterns that are Photons, Electrons, Protons and Neutrons…….. AEons are spiraling Electromagnetic fields surrounding Electrons, Protons and Neutrons…….. AEons move in random fashion in space when not influenced by Photon Waves (Light Rays)…….. AEons are expanding Mass/Energy/Space units that exert pressure on everything, and are everything…. AEon fields are Matter's surface that can be touched, not the Electrons, Protons and Neutrons within Matter….... AEons can only be organized into a stable sustainable pattern by a Photon Wave in it's various configurations…….. It ain't your Grampaws Old AEther, This One is Dynamic!! Albert Einstein discovered and now everyone else knows that energy and matter are interchangeable and are different forms or patterns of the same thing. In his book "The Pressureon Forceon Concept of Reality" William B. Luton gives a single reason for Gravity, Electromagnetism and the Strong and Weak Forces. Luton wrote "There is indeed an AEther but far different from the Static AEther previously theorized". Luton believed that a Universal Dynamic AEther, composed of individual packets of Energy, is the cause and effect of all that is reality. Luton called the individual Energy/Space units "Pressureons". Each "Pressureon" moves continually at the speed of light. He wrote, "The Universe is a seething cauldron of vibrating pulsating expanding energy grains that repel each other". Luton's "Pressureons" are the Energy that becomes Matter and the Matter that becomes Energy. I chose to use the term "AEons" instead of "Pressureons" to represent Energy grains. Everything is a result of stable and unstable patterns of this Energy. Below is a summary of my conclusions after studying with William B. Luton and having many discussions over the span of thirty years about the subject. Once when asked what causes Energy he shrugged and said, "As far as I am concerned before The Big Bang it is any-ones guess". Space, Galaxies, Stars, Planets, You, The Universe and me are all made of the same expanding packets of Energy that I prefer to call AEons which is, short for AEther-ons. AEons are always on the move. The very fabric of space is continually moving at the speed of light. Nothing is in any one place for a measurable length of time, relative to the whole Universe. Everything that we perceive as reality is continually moving in, around, and through everything at the speed of light. AEons sustain all Matter at the Electron level. AEons are the expanding Energy that sustains Stars, Planets and everything in between. AEons normally move through space at the speed of light in a random fashion, but in the vicinity of a Mass, more AEons are biased toward the Mass than away. (Warped Space). The Electrons Energy is sustained by the Energy / Mass exchange of AEons. AEons biased inward toward a body of Mass become more concentrated than those flowing away from that body. This inwardly biased pressure on the particles of Mass is a one component of gravity. Our Sun requires an enormous Energy inflow of AEons to sustain it and it has an extremely inwardly biased AEon field. The inwardly biased field in the vicinity of The Planet Mercury is much denser than in the vicinity of the Earth. This simply means that more Energy in the form of AEons flows toward a body of Mass than away. The Electrons in the Sun convert the inflow of AEons into Electron Energy and Mass. Some of the Electron's Photon rings are broken at the Sun's surface and radiate into the surrounding space as Photon Waves. The measurement of time is nothing but the marking of events but events happen whether marked or not marked. Because everything is composed of Aeons continually moving at the speed of light nothing is in one place for a measurable length of time. Two basics: (1) ENERGY is the ability to do work. (2) Electrons, Protons and Neutrons = ENERGY. PHOTONS Photon waves are in perfect resonance with the frequency of the Universe. Photons are twisting waves of AEons moving through the Dynamic AEther Field at the speed of light. (Light) William B.Luton called them "Forceons" because they alone can force organized patterns in the randomly moving AEon field. Photon Waves cause a spiraling wake of AEons to be formed around them much the same way that a propeller creates a spiraling wake of water when it spins through a body of water This spiraling wake of AEons is the Electromagnetic component of light. Electromagnetism is a screw like pattern in the AEon field. Photon Waves spin on their longitudinal axis as they move forward making the waves appear as both waves and packets and can be detected as both. Photon Waves made of expanding AEons are Energy consumers and AEons are the Energy consumed. Closely twisted Photon Waves (Photons) are more energetic than those more loosely twisted. Gamma Rays are more energetic waves that are twisted tighter than those of more loosely twisted visible light rays. Photons, Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, Neutrinos and all of the observed short-lived, unstable pseudo particles are organized patterns of AEons ELECTRONS Luton theorized that photon waves were formed in the violently moving Energy of The Big Bang. Subsequently some of these rolling twisted photon waves were forced into the stable ring formation, the Electron. Electrons are the AEon / Matter interface (gateway) and are the smallest unit rightfully considered Matter. Electrons are a stable closed ring of twisted Photon Waves spinning on their longitudinal axis as they move around in a circle at the speed of light. A spiraling field of AEons is caused to surround and travel with the Electron's twisted Photon Wave. That spiraling field of AEons is Electromagnetism. Expanding AEons impact the Electrons twisted Photon Wave from all directions at the speed of light and part of their expanding Energy is caught up in the wave to become expanding Matter. THE TWO COMPONENTS OF GRAVITY Electrons are Energy/Matter converters at the AEon / Photon level. AEons normally move about in random fashion in the Dynamic AEther but are biased toward a body of Mass. The Electrons in a body of Mass are Energy / Matter converters, therefore Electrons are Energy (AEon ) consumers. Directed pressure toward the Electron is one of two components of Gravity. Albert Einstein recognized this as warped time/space around a body of Mass. The second component of Gravity is also the Electron. A Photon Wave organized in the Electron configuration consumes expanding AEon Energy and converts part of it into Mass. Gravity is the result of a directed pressure of expanding Energy exerted toward all Matter and the conversion of part of that expanding Energy into Matter by the Electron. This continual conversion of expanding Energy into Matter at the Photon / Electron level results in an accelerating outward expansion of all Matter. Gravity is not a force but a twofold result of inward directed pressure on Matter and an outward expansion of Matter. ELECTROMAGNETISM Magnetic attraction and repulsion is the result of spiraling screw like patterns of AEon Energy caused by twisted spinning Photon Waves. Electrons aligned in the same plane in a magnetic material makes each Electron's expanding Photon Wave contribute a portion of its tiny spiraling field of AEons to the overall magnetic field. Opposite magnetic poles attract because of a screwing together effect in the AEon field and like poles repel because the screw like patterns in the AEon field rotate in opposite directions having the effect of unscrewing. William B.Luton called AEons "Pressureons" in his "The Pressureon/Forceon Concept of Reality". He called them "Pressureons" because they exert pressure on everything. The idea of a Universal Dynamic AEther and the structure of Photon Waves and Electrons are logical conclusions based on William B. Lutons "The Pressureon/Forceon Concept of Reality". The author, Marcus W. Hardin, coined the name "AEons", to be used for Dynamic AEther Particles and the expression "The Dynamic AEther ". mhardin104@aol.com If a photon wave could be viewed it would look something like this twisted illustration below. Resembles a garden wind twister
TOAWNIF Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 As I understand it, Sir Isaac Newton, apparently the father of modern science, observed an apple fall from a tree and gravely declared the existence of gravity. Of course it may not have been an apple or even a tree and maybe he wasn’t there, or, possibly it was two other fellows’. Actually, it could have been earlier or later than the time specified. However, the fact remains that since that time the world has practically filled up with gravity. So now, as I understand it, we have a holy trinity of forces keeping us safely secure on this planet of ours. We have magnetism at the planet core preventing all the magnets, iron bearing rocks and ferrous metals from flying away, atmospheric pressure pushing all the non ferrous materials to earth and gravity doing everything else. Magnetism is measured in Webbers? Atmospheric pressure in psi? Kpc2 or bars and gravity in……… well actually in itself? 1G is one gravity where G stands for gravity and 1 stands for one. Apparently! I took a longish tube, sealed it at one end with my finger, immersed its other end in water and slowly pulled it away from the water surface without pulling it out and the water filled the tube as it rose. When I did pull it out the water fell out unceremoniously. Firemen do something similar when priming a pump; instead of a finger they exhaust air with engine exhaust. At least they used to. Unless I’m wrong again. If I took a giant test tube, inserted an electric filament connected to a supply, at the sealed end and then upended it in a large body of water and ignited the filament, thereby exhausting the air, I would expect to see my tube fill up with water. Would I be disappointed? Theorise if you will, a tube rising to the ozone layer and beyond. A b****y powerful filament and a really good supply of both electricity and water. Could I reasonably expect the water to rise to a goodly height? Would it be likely (assuming laboratory conditions) to rise only to a particular height and therefore, possibly, reveal another quality of gravity? Could gravity be measured by the difference between the force a lack of air would produce and atmospheric pressure? I am a flawed intellect, please don’t punish me for my lousy expression but turn your attention to the question. Can the existence of gravity be demonstrated in this way? Or some other of which I am unaware? And leave my grammar alone please or you might offend my spell-check.
Klaynos Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 The force due to gravity is measured in Newtons, 1g, referees to 1 * the force due to gravity at sea level. A Webber is a unit of magnetic FLUX, I don't know the unit for gravitational flux off of the top of my head sorry... Are you describing a barometer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hg_barometer.PNG Like that? If so then from it you can calculate pressure, and using the standard gravity equations you can get out a value for the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula I doubt it's a good method due to local conditions though.
swansont Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 If I took a giant test tube, inserted an electric filament connected to a supply, at the sealed end and then upended it in a large body of water and ignited the filament, thereby exhausting the air, I would expect to see my tube fill up with water. Would I be disappointed? Yes. The products of cumbustion are still molecular gas, not a vacuum.
TOAWNIF Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Yes. The products of cumbustion are still molecular gas, not a vacuum. Thank you. Would this be a little? or a lot?
TOAWNIF Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Are you describing a barometer? Yes. but with the described application. If so then from it you can calculate pressure, and using the standard gravity equations you can get out a value for the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that point. I shall follow this up. Thanks for your help.
Recommended Posts