Help Forming a Physical Theory

[timo]

>> [Atheist:] I didn´t bother reading through all of your posts intensively. But

>> from the few things I read' date=' your misconceptions on physics and your

>> statement...

 

I'm sorry but should I value such a statement?

[/quote']

Even if that was all you understood in my post (I doubt it), I´d say yes:

a) Maybe think about why I didn´t read intensively? Do you actually know how hard it can be reading (pseudo-) scientific texts when you don´t do that in a "hastily read and then throw around keywords like time-dilatation to look smart"-manner? And I´m talking about well written posts there. Actually, I think I couldn´t say it better than Ophiolite:

"You may not wish to hear it, but the problem here is not our attempt to understand what you are saying, but your singular inability to communicate your thoughts in a coherent fashion. It is largely academic if this is because they are ill formed, qualitative, wrong, or simply badly expressed, the problem lies at your end".

b) There simply are misconceptions in your physical knowledge. The most fundamental still is that you think physics even tries to explain WHY things happen while it tries to explain HOW they do. Whether you take the mathematical/visualizing vehicles used for doing that for real or if you choose to believe in a completely different cause is completely irrelevant for physics. Actually, my example of "everything happens to god´s will" as a theory of cause is much better that you expected, when you rejected it without even bothering to think about it (haven´t I heard that accuse somewhere else?).

 

 

Perhaps that is due to the bad expression of my idea, but still it can get one quite frustrated.

[...]

But all I've been hearing from you these last 2 pages is:

"This sucks." "Your expression sucks even more." "Go learn physics." "Kill yourself braindamage boy."

I´ve spent too much time on this post allready so I´ll make this short:

1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated.

2) Learn to deal with criticism.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Now for your (now surprisingly understandable) approach - the actual reason that I even bothered posting here again:

 

 

For your assumptions:

- What is speed, what is the universe? Are you assuming a universe as in Newtonian Mechanics with time being a quantity existing independently from space?

- Thinking about elastic collision even helps that much that I can ask my 1st question here: What happens when two different photons >> and < meet each other? According to your elastic collision that would result in << and > after collision, respectively. Photons, however, do not interact. So it´s still >> and < in reality (or < and >> depending on your view).

 

For your clearifications in the follow-up post:

- Are you aware that you are quantitizing speed? An object having a mass of 10 units for example can only have 11 different speeds (I´ll call them velocities from now on, that´s probably what you mean). If you counter this with "I make the unit so small you won´t recognize it" then I´ll be very interested where the whole point in integers of units is going to be.

- Mass - Energy equivalence: Splitting up the mc² term into two is ok. But if you consider the kinetic term you have a problem: Even if you can account for the relatvistic mass-change correctly and can give an explanation how and why you do that, it´ll most certainly involve the lorentz-factor. The lorentz-factor, however, is the inverse of a square root. I´d be very surprised if you can model this with integers.

- Energy-quantization: I hope you are aware that energy in general is neither predicted nor observed to be quantitized. If it really is, your energy quantum "building block" must be smaller than 1/3rd of the tiny mass of a neutrino. If they, however, travel close to lightspeed you need a lot of >´s to make up for the one < that makes the neutrino-mass nonzero. That´ll make the energy of your building block even more tiny. Are you aware what numbers of units we´re thus talking about when even considering particles as small as a proton?

 

There´s a lot more questions that could be asked but I think that´s enough for now. Note that I consider any response that took less than three hours of thinking as an insult (yes, really).

[swansont]

 

1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated.

2) Learn to deal with criticism.

 

I cannot emphasize enough the truth of those two statements.

 

And, if I may clarify the second one a bit - saying "that statement is stupid" is NOT the same as saying "you are stupid for making that statement"

[swansont]

Atheist already mentioned that you have quantized speeds.

 

How do you account for wave-particle duality, seeing as you have made the behavior of waves and particles distinct?

[Ophiolite]

ProtonHead,

Physics is not my area of expertise. When I was doing a simple calculation of the kinetic energy of an impacting bolide expressed in megatons of TNT, for another thread on this forum, I felt it necessary to check a couple of textbooks and a web site, just to make sure I didn't make a fool of myself with the calculation. All that for something as simple as a problem in Classical Mechanics.

 

Atheist has demonstrated by his questions that he has read further into your ideas than I have and has seen several of their implications and weaknesses. He clearly has at least a passing understanding of physics.

Swansont, despite his rather acerbic offerings on this thread has demonstrated on other threads a comparable level of expertise.

 

They are not impressed by your hypothethis. You have complained that the attacks have been on your manners rather than your ideas. There have been some attacks on your manners, certainly, but the main thrust in my reading of the posts has been on your hypothesis, or rather the ineffective way you have generally presented it.

 

Perhaps this is a failing in them rather than you. Possibly their expertise lags behind yours, much as mine lags behind theirs. This seems improbable. You say in the opening sentence of a thread you initiated, Enlighten me Wise Ones, (the emphasis is mine)

 

"Hello, since I really know nothing of physics I would be greatfull if I could get answers for questions bugging my mind."

 

You seem to have come a long way since the middle of November, from 'knowing nothing of physics', to postulating a new 'theory of everything'.

 

I believe I speak for Swansont and Atheist when I say that we welcome curiosity, innovation and imagination. (If I do not reflect their views I am confident they will let me know in very clear terms!) I think one of the functions of this forum is to promote such characteristics. However, would it not be more productive to commit these same characteristics, which you clearly have in abundance, towards properly understanding current theories before indulging yourself in re-writing the textbooks.

 

If you choose to explore highly novel concepts from a weak base of understanding, you should not be surprised if you are greeted with more scepticism than enthusiasm.

 

That's a rather verbose response on my part, but I remain committed to honouring your original request for comments. If you want the Reader's Digest version, here it is. I still don't know what the **** you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.

 

Let me close with a wry smile and a wink, with reference to a point made by Atheist:

 

1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated.

 

But Atheist, that takes all the fun out of it.

[Proton Head]

You seem to have come a long way since the middle of November, from 'knowing nothing of physics', to postulating a new 'theory of everything'.

 

Well, what do you know I must be a quick learner.

 

...

 

Btw how can you say that the other guys have pointed out weaknesses in the theory when I have not even had the time to comment them?

 

 

In any case,

 

I will be returning to some of the questions but for now

 

 

For your assumptions:

- What is speed' date=' what is the universe? Are you assuming a universe as in Newtonian Mechanics with time being a quantity existing independently from space?)[/quote']

 

I am assuming that time can only be measured, when events do not happen in unison. That is at the elemental unit level there is no time, since all the units move at the speed of light.

Time is a measure which need arises when one views the collections of the elementary units, not the units themselves. For the collections of units events do not happen in unison, and so we have to account the fact that events are happening differently with different collections, with a measure – time.

 

As well as time, speed is not a relevant quantity at the elemental unit level. However when viewed at the unit collection level it becomes a relevant quantity and is interlocked with time.

 

 

Thinking about elastic collision even helps that much that I can ask my 1st question here: What happens when two different photons >> and < meet each other? According to your elastic collision that would result in << and > after collision, respectively. Photons, however, do not interact. So it´s still >> and < in reality (or < and >> depending on your view).

 

This is where you got it wrong.

Look, if the situation is like in your example:

 

1 > 2 > < 3

 

I will number the units and show what happens according to the theory.

 

First units 2 and 3 collide and the situation is:

 

1 > < 2 3 >

 

Then units 1 and 2 collide and the situation turns out:

 

< 1 2 > 3 >

 

that is:

 

< > >

 

So it would be as you say happens in reality.

 

I would postulate that photons do infact interact, but it is left unnoticed because the result is the same as if they just passed through each other wihtout interacting.

 

This is something I will give more detail when I talk about interference.

 

 

- Are you aware that you are quantitizing speed?

 

Yes I am aware of this. However I think of it as this way.

Since mass and energy are interconnected, energy and temperature are interconnected and energy and speed are interconnected, then they are all interconnected.

So if any one of the quantities mass, energy, speed (velocity) or temperature is quantized then they all are.

 

So if energy is quantized so is speed.

 

 

 

- Energy-quantization: I hope you are aware that energy in general is neither predicted nor observed to be quantitized. If it really is, your energy quantum "building block" must be smaller than 1/3rd of the tiny mass of a neutrino. If they, however, travel close to lightspeed you need a lot of >´s to make up for the one < that makes the neutrino-mass nonzero. That´ll make the energy of your building block even more tiny. Are you aware what numbers of units we´re thus talking about when even considering particles as small as a proton?

 

I have always thought that energy is observed to be quantized. For example the energy of EM radiation is given of in quanta of E = h*f

 

About the number of units, yes as I have added in the explanation section, the distance between 2 units is the wavelength of the particle.

 

This means that at any given moment the units an electron would hold would be around 10^30 (a very rough estimate).

 

 

How do you account for wave-particle duality, seeing as you have made the behavior of waves and particles distinct?

 

I don't understand your view. I see myself as saying that waves and particles are nothing sort of distinct.

[swansont]

I don't understand your view. I see myself as saying that waves and particles are nothing sort of distinct.

 

 

(from post 23)

Humans view a line of building blocks in which all the units are travelling in one direction as waves (EM waves to be more precise). Lines of building blocks with units travelling in both (opposite) directions are viewed as particles.

 

You have particles travelling at different speed than waves.

[timo]

[1]

Didn´t get your time definition. Especially the statement "there is no time, since all the units move at the speed of light" confused me.

 

[2]

So if the units react individually under collision what is your rule to tell which block later on belongs to which object? Let´s use the notation (x,y) for an object where x is the number of >´s and y the number of <'s.. So my example about the photons would read (2,0) + (0,1) --> (0,1) + (2,0) (note that the summands have an ordering). That works easy with (x,0)+(0,b) also. But what happens to (3,1)+(1,2), for example? Where do I distinguish between the particles? If I thread every block with it´s individual "collisions" I´d get (0,3)+(4,0) afterwise. Total matter-anihilation for every physical process? Simply asked: What is the result of (x,y) + (a,b) ?

 

[3]

I´m really interested how you take the relativistic mass-change into account. If you manage to do this and still have energy-conservation you might have a first result. I see little point in enhancing your "this all is described by my theory"-list if there´s an obwious weakness at this basic part.

 

[4]

If you allways thought that energy in general in quantized (I´ll try to remember the correct word ) then you now learned that it isn´t, at least in the sense I was talking about (free photons). Funnily you gave a formula showing this yourself (E=h*f). Think about it a while to see what I mean. Remember what I said about in-depth insights about current theories? Well, this one is not really a big secret but I´d expect a lot of users here to give the same answer when asked why the energy of a free photon is quantized.

 

[5]

How do you derive the number 10^30 ? Also, do you think there is any experiment being able to measure to an accurancy of 10^-30 so the difference between your quantized units and non-quantized mass and velocity can ever be observed?

 

 

That´s my thoughts for now. Especially the points [2] and [3] would interest me as they would actually give at least some results if you make them work.

[Guest dave22]

don't know where the original poster is, but here's my thoughts

 

 

[1]

Didn´t get your time definition. Especially the statement "there is no time' date=' since all the units move at the speed of light" confused me.[/quote']

 

if you have 2 balls moving through empty space at the same speed you cant indeed tell whether time is flowing or not, since in fact the situation is the same whether the balls are moving or not..

however once the other ball suddenly decelarates to a slower speed and starts trailing the first ball, you can tell that time flows since the balls' different speeds create an event.

 

 

[2]

So if the units react individually under collision what is your rule to tell which block later on belongs to which object? Let´s use the notation (x' date='y) for an object where x is the number of >´s and y the number of <'s.. So my example about the photons would read (2,0) + (0,1) --> (0,1) + (2,0) (note that the summands have an ordering). That works easy with (x,0)+(0,b) also. But what happens to (3,1)+(1,2), for example? Where do I distinguish between the particles? If I thread every block with it´s individual "collisions" I´d get (0,3)+(4,0) afterwise. Total matter-anihilation for every physical process? Simply asked: What is the result of (x,y) + (a,b) ?[/quote']

 

from what i read, I believe the idea was that particles where just (temporary) condensations of units. maybe you're just lost to the numbers, a couple opposed to the 10^30 he proposed for an electron. so the process of the units bouncing forth and back would take a lot of time.

besides in nature that kind of situation you proposed (x,y) + (a,b) wouldn't happen 'cause there's always other energy coming from outside sources which would turn the escaping units from the objects back at them.

 

[3]

I´m really interested how you take the relativistic mass-change into account. If you manage to do this and still have energy-conservation you might have a first result. I see little point in enhancing your "this all is described by my theory"-list if there´s an obwious weakness at this basic part.

 

thought this was the defining part of his thing. the guy said for a number of times that speed changes as a result of a particle gaining more of these "units" of his. this means that every time the speed of a particle changed it would gain x units, which would bring it energy x * E'.

and since E=mc^2 the particle would gain more mass.

dont really understand what you mean by "still have energy-conservation"?

what's the problem. as long as those units (and the energy) came of from something else, energy stays conserved.

 

 

now to the original writer if youre still around:

 

i did a little paperwork and i'll tell you that your formula for velocities is wrong.

don't know what the correct one is, but yours is wrong.

 

also you haven't though what mass would mean to you. it wouldn't be as easy to define as you make it sound since it depends on how many units are travelling "left" and how many "right", as well as the total number of units.

 

and a litlle advice. you'll have a real hard time formulating anything 'cause if you think about it a particle gaining a unit would have its energy, mass, wavelenght/frequency, lenght and speed changed, but since many of these quantities you propose interconnected so they would change in not a linear fashion.

[Thorium]

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue199/labnotes.html

 

Either we can go faster than c, or points are connected in space some how

[swansont]

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue199/labnotes.html

 

Either we can go faster than c' date=' or points are connected in space some how [/quote']

 

It's a scifi site, so caveat emptor, but it seems pretty good. There's one error I caught straight away. Where he says changing the polarization of one photon changes the other, they should have said measuring. Once you measure the polarization, the entanglement is destroyed. And you can't know the polarization without measuring it first.

 

We've discussed this at length in other threads.

[Thorium]

lol, yeah the sci fi link was not a good idea