Asymmetry and monodynamic

[SamBridge]

Yes, you are probably right. The tuning fork relays, or couples its motion through the cross piece at the bottom of the two arms. Here is where the self coordinating vibration is transmitted. This by tension and compression longitudinal waves. The loose ends are where the large action is.

Its probably the principle of coordinated action is where the model has something to offer to electron pair coordination. There the model might stop, and another one like the rattling kids toy may be more suitable to take up the story.

 

I believe it was Richard Feynman who said in one of his lectures , when discussing how similar pendulums have a habit of self synchronizing when near each other said:

 

" its like shoals of fish when they turn nearly instantly. Its Not he said some communication field, its the near neighbor coupling. Each fish has two coupling rules { 1 . i want to be close by 2. i don't want to be closer than 10cm (say) } These coupling rules cause this majical effect when you see shoals of fish turn and shimmer in fantastic formation."

 

 

From my personal observations :-

 

I have come to notice how when many coupling happens between dissimilar pairs there is usually an attractive element and a repulsive element both present .

I still think most of what you're saying isn't really scientific, saying "for some reason it seems to synchronize" especially doesn't make sense at the atomic level because there's no in between orbitals or frequencies for electrons to transition with, with the pendulums what's more likely is that there is a value of oscillation that is very close to the system being at equilibrium which both attain, the energy lost from a system becomes so much smaller compared to initial losses that eventually they just both look like the same value. If I have X^5+bx^4+cx^3.../ X^5-3x^2-1... vs x^3-5x.../ x^3-X-1..., even though x^5 will always yield a higher value, both systems will asymtote at y=1 and eventually you could set the windows of the graphs so that they both look like the same curve.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I still think most of what you're saying isn't really scientific, saying "for some reason it seems to synchronize" especially doesn't make sense at the atomic level because there's no in between orbitals or frequencies for electrons to transition with, with the pendulums what's more likely is that there is a value of oscillation that is very close to the system being at equilibrium which both attain, the energy lost from a system becomes so much smaller compared to initial losses that eventually they just both look like the same value. If I have X^5+bx^4+cx^3.../ X^5-3x^2-1... vs x^3-5x.../ x^3-X-1..., even though x^5 will always yield a higher value, both systems will asymtote at y=1 and eventually you could set the windows of the graphs so that they both look like the same curve.

I'm not sure we have to be unnecessarily complicated to be scientific all the time. Things seem to settle down to the lowest energy usage , Resonant, bottom of the hill or dip in the curve. I agree to explain something mathematically may be a nightmare at times, but the root concept may be quite simple. Convergence seems to be a very strong driver for nature. This as opposed to a sort of determinism , driven by mechanism.

 

I know some mathematicians, maybe you are one , believe maths is at the root of all things.Although many years ago I was grounded in maths. I now believe it is similar to accountants. Absolutely vital for a good business to grow, prosper and survive , yet useless without a business idea and model to make up the body of a business. So with math, essential to quantify, describe detail, check performance etc but empty without the key concept drivers. If you are an avowed believer in the sanctity of maths, you may take offence by what I am saying. Which is not my intention or desire. I have enjoyed your arguments , and hope they continue. However I will continue to dig for underlying , principles, concepts and models when possible. If you take me out a distance on maths alone , I will feel that I am being taken out on sheet ice without a hand rail.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[SamBridge]

I'm not sure we have to be unnecessarily complicated to be scientific all the time. Things seem to settle down to the lowest energy usage , Resonant, bottom of the hill or dip in the curve. I agree to explain something mathematically may be a nightmare at times, but the root concept may be quite simple. Convergence seems to be a very strong driver for nature.

 

I know some mathematicians, maybe you are one , believe maths is at the root of all things.Although many years ago I was grounded in maths. I now believe it is similar to accountants. Absolutely vital for a good business to grow, prosper and survive , yet useless without a business idea and model to make up the body of a business. So with math, essential to quantify, describe detail, check performance etc but empty without the key concept drivers. If you are an avowed believer in the sanctity of maths, you may take offence by what I am saying. Which is not my intention or desire. I have enjoyed your arguments , and hope they continue. However I will continue to dig for underlying , principles, concepts and models when possible. If you take me out a distance on maths alone , I will feel that I am being taken out on sheet ice without a hand rail.

I'll get a picture for you if you have trouble imagining the equations without any sort of reference though

https://www.desmos.com/calculator

For the first graph, type "1/x", then press enter, then for the next box type "2/x" and press enter. Now, you will see that near the "x" axis, the graphs start to converge with it. Let's say that "2" represents twice the energy that system 1 had, which is modeled by "1/x", there y is energy and x is time. It doesn't matter if I start at a higher energy, they eventually just approach the value "0". What you're describing seems to be the tendency that matter naturally wants to occupy the lowest possible potential of any system, which is essentially what I am trying to show an analogy of with the graphs. You can skip the graphs if you want.

But this pattern that we observe of matter just doesn't seem to really fit exactly with what you're saying. So what? That doesn't explain why electrons exist the way they do, that just says that naturally they will move to lower energy states if given the opportunity, that doesn't have much to do with why electrons combine and form one system, that just says that they probably will.

Edited January 20, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

https://www.desmos.com/calculator

 

Of course, must be added to all the "rotational kinetic repulsive".

The curl mathematic and others as "one force between two stellar objects" and "electrostatic repulsion".

The feedback of energy ,, not through a mirror, but through a kind of rope.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_Curl_Mathematics

 

We would then be the fruit of this harmony.

Between two receptive objets, and not through a mirror like we do.

 

At that point we only talk about Resonance.

 

This same principle can operate as three "receptive objets". One Pingpong for three.

But it becomes almost impossible to calculate a lot of phenomenon.

 

Can we reduce the paradox, if we apply a rotation control of the light source in the Young's experience or double-slit ?

[SamBridge]

If you have rotation control it can sort of act like a loop hole, but not really, you can alter the probability and trace only a localized trajectory, but definitively not the exact trajectory.

You seem to be hinting at those very small dimensions, the 6th dimension I believe, which is supposedly wrapped up in very small regions of space.

The "feed back" as you mention is moderated by gauge bosons, which are also used in string theory, though their transmission can be potentially be described without extra dimensions, they do have a property of a rope where they are predicted to "snap back" to their parent particle upon interaction.

But spin is a pretty hard thing to describe exactly, it doesn't really have a physical meaning, it's not a physical rotation of any sort.

Essentially what we know is that other spin states just can't exist, their existence just isn't supported by the mathematics we use to model them, if they tried to exist with any other spin they just wouldn't exist any more, there isn't enough evidence to support that it's exactly like a rope, a lot of quantum physics isn't really physical at all.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If you have rotation control it can sort of act like a loop hole, but not really, you can alter the probability and trace only a localized trajectory, but definitively not the exact trajectory.

You seem to be hinting at those very small dimensions, the 6th dimension I believe, which is supposedly wrapped up in very small regions of space.

The "feed back" as you mention is moderated by gauge bosons, which are also used in string theory, though their transmission can be potentially be described without extra dimensions, they do have a property of a rope where they are predicted to "snap back" to their parent particle upon interaction.

But spin is a pretty hard thing to describe exactly, it doesn't really have a physical meaning, it's not a physical rotation of any sort.

Essentially what we know is that other spin states just can't exist, their existence just isn't supported by the mathematics we use to model them, if they tried to exist with any other spin they just wouldn't exist any more, there isn't enough evidence to support that it's exactly like a rope, a lot of quantum physics isn't really physical at all.

 

 

Yes, but to remove the spin totally out of spin would surely be a mistake, as I understand it , there still is actual angular momentum there somehow !

[SamBridge]

 

 

Yes, but to remove the spin totally out of spin would surely be a mistake, as I understand it , there still is actual angular momentum there somehow !

If you think about a unit circle, you can use a single direction essentially to create a wave. If you move counterclockwise you can create an "upwards" sine wave or cosine wave, and if you move clockwise you can create a downward sine wave or cosine wave.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

If you think about a unit circle, you can use a single direction essentially to create a wave.

 

 

Yes. A rotary "sewing machine".

 

There's only one vector to set .. "a chain code"

 

The needle.

 

[SamBridge]

 

Yes. A rotary "sewing machine".

 

There's only one vector to set .. "a chain code"

 

The needle.

 

Well the mathematical curls you mentioned seem to be a better description, though spin isn't exactly related to the unit circle, it still seems to be some sort of by product of the mathematics of trigonometric functions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Its time to investigate The Angular Momentum of the electron, "spin" that Niels Bohr used to set up the early description of permissable orbits

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Well the mathematical curls you mentioned seem to be a better description, though spin isn't exactly related to the unit circle, it still seems to be some sort of by product of the mathematics of trigonometric functions.

 

Yes. I have already mentioned here "asymmetry-and-monodynamic/page-2#entry724445" --> wiki the Curl_mathematics

 

Is that it-is one story about the angular aomentum. Can you help me to find a raison that I've made an asymmetric topic method ?

 

"Asymmetric" does mean two objects --> M1 and C1 on my pattern.

 

M1 is "the string". C1 is "the charge". The distortion between them create the matter (particle and anti-particle).

 

The energy vector Q is "the needle". So the angular momentum, is in the force of energy.

 

String's Distortion create the mirror to asymmetrically in the vector Q.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Yes. I have already mentioned here "asymmetry-and-monodynamic/page-2#entry724445" --> wiki the Curl_mathematics

 

Is that it-is one story about the angular aomentum. Can you help me to find a raison that I've made an asymmetric topic method ?

 

"Asymmetric" does mean two objects --> M1 and C1 on my pattern.

 

M1 is "the string". C1 is "the charge". The distortion between them create the matter (particle and anti-particle).

 

The energy vector Q is "the needle". So the angular momentum, is in the force of energy.

 

String's Distortion create the mirror to asymmetrically in the vector Q.

 

 

In Three lines Simple, Words

 

What is your end Goal

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

 

In Three lines Simple, Words

 

What is your end Goal

 

You can in fact identify three points : M1 the string ; C1 the charge ; and E the energy.

 

Conclusion : The energy goes faster than the speed of light.

 

That-it.

[SamBridge]

 

Yes. I have already mentioned here "asymmetry-and-monodynamic/page-2#entry724445" --> wiki the Curl_mathematics

 

Is that it-is one story about the angular aomentum. Can you help me to find a raison that I've made an asymmetric topic method ?

 

"Asymmetric" does mean two objects --> M1 and C1 on my pattern.

 

M1 is "the string". C1 is "the charge". The distortion between them create the matter (particle and anti-particle).

 

The energy vector Q is "the needle". So the angular momentum, is in the force of energy.

 

String's Distortion create the mirror to asymmetrically in the vector Q.

You were doing fine by my knowledge until you said "the distortion between them create matter". That doesn't mae sense. Asymmetrical systems are only treated as one system because the components are indistinguishable not because they don't exist as separate components, they still have to have their own spin, it's just that the net spin will have to be 0. The difference between them does give an accurate probability density model, but that's as much as we can really say.

 

 

You can in fact identify three points : M1 the string ; C1 the charge ; and E the energy.

 

Conclusion : The energy goes faster than the speed of light.

 

That-it.

Not only is energy not a physical entity that cannot in of itself "travel" distance, but it never goes faster that light the correlation of its probability field merely exists in an indefinite volume of space.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Not only is energy not a physical entity that cannot in of itself "travel" distance, but it never goes faster that light the correlation of its probability field merely exists in an indefinite volume of space.

 

 

I understand. But what about Dirac Sea ?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

[SamBridge]

Couldn't say, I'm not so familiar Dirac Sea, but based on my research it doesn't seem to apply much to what you're suggesting. It seems to model different energy states of particles and antiparticles, or like an infinite number of them, but something doesn't seem quite right, I am seeing "negative x" where it doesn't make sense, unless that it something to do with the description of antimatter that I think is the quantitative of "anti matter can be thought of as normal matte but with negative energy going backwards in time", or at least that's where I think it comes from, but it does not seem to model the probability density created by interference of two electrons in a system.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Couldn't say, I'm not so familiar Dirac Sea, but based on my research it doesn't seem to apply much to what you're suggesting. It seems to model different energy states of particles and antiparticles, or like an infinite number of them, but something doesn't seem quite right, I am seeing "negative x" where it doesn't make sense, unless that it something to do with the description of antimatter that I think is the quantitative of "anti matter can be thought of as normal matte but with negative energy going backwards in time", or at least that's where I think it comes from, but it does not seem to model the probability density created by interference of two electrons in a system.

 

Now that is interesting!

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

LHC seems to be making Super-Symmetry unlikely

www.scienceforums.net/topic/70462-lhc-seems-to-be-making-super-symmetry-unlikely/

[SamBridge]

LHC seems to be making Super-Symmetry unlikely

www.scienceforums.net/topic/70462-lhc-seems-to-be-making-super-symmetry-unlikely/

What exactly makes something a "super partner"? How do they know a given boson corresponds to a given fermion?

[imatfaal]

What exactly makes something a "super partner"? How do they know a given boson corresponds to a given fermion?

 

You hit the nail on the head - they dont know! It was a very appealing theory that allowed several important questions to be approached, and which fitted with some basic desires of what should happen. The problem is that the space (ie energy / mass) available for these super-partners is running out. I think some (popular) variants of string theory require the existence of super-symmetric partners for the mathematical formalism to work - this is another of the problems for theory. But this is why we have real experiments like the LHC - it found a particle that is highly likely to the Higgs (need spin clarification before we can confirm) - and it didn't find predicted super-partners; theory is important - but experiment is priceless and incontrovertible.

 

There are two articles here - a pro and a con ; these are both excellent blogs by the way and would repay regular reading.

[SamBridge]

You hit the nail on the head - they dont know! It was a very appealing theory that allowed several important questions to be approached, and which fitted with some basic desires of what should happen. The problem is that the space (ie energy / mass) available for these super-partners is running out. I think some (popular) variants of string theory require the existence of super-symmetric partners for the mathematical formalism to work - this is another of the problems for theory. But this is why we have real experiments like the LHC - it found a particle that is highly likely to the Higgs (need spin clarification before we can confirm) - and it didn't find predicted super-partners; theory is important - but experiment is priceless and incontrovertible.

 

There are two articles here - a pro and a con ; these are both excellent blogs by the way and would repay regular reading.

When you say they are about to "discover" a higg's boson, that seems odd, because they do not have charge and cannot emit photons, how exactly can they be observed or measured? Also how does it explain the pattern of the uncertainty principal in Heisenberg or Dirac mathematics? Because if you've noticed, more massive particles are more localized, which is why electrons are on the outside, but they did not have Higg's Bosons to explain that, so how does coupling with Higg's Bosons cause the oscillation mode to differ in such a way that something is less localized? Perhaps something to do with the energy? Even at that point a most of the nucleus is energy, the relative mass of which would be typically greater than the relative mass of an electron. This I think is different than ionization energy however, when an electron gains energy it can enter in a different mode of oscillation, what I'm talking is more of the potential energy required to create the field oscillation in the first place.

 

You could argue "but what about gluons? They are massless." while it may be true they do not couple with higg's bosons, they have a greater relative mass, energy itself can still distort the fabric of space (or at least that's what I'm assuming since Neil DeGrasse Tyson wanted to build an accelerator by bending the fabric of space using lasers made of photons to accelerate particles and he is certified in physics as well as interactions with photons in distorted space anyway), and so gluons are very localized enough to even fir multiple individual ones in nucleons, which you can also see evidence of when an atomic bomb is detonated, they store quite a lot of energy in their bonds (not chemical bonds).

Edited February 6, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

When you say they are about to "discover" a higg's boson, that seems odd, because they do not have charge and cannot emit photons, how exactly can they be observed or measured? Also how does it explain the pattern of the uncertainty principal in Heisenberg or Dirac mathematics? Because if you've noticed, more massive particles are more localized, which is why electrons are on the outside, but they did not have Higg's Bosons to explain that, so how does coupling with Higg's Bosons cause the oscillation mode to differ in such a way that something is less localized? Perhaps something to do with the energy? Even at that point a most of the nucleus is energy, the relative mass of which would be typically greater than the relative mass of an electron. This I think is different than ionization energy however, when an electron gains energy it can enter in a different mode of oscillation, what I'm talking is more of the potential energy required to create the field oscillation in the first place.

 

We should be able to include a real notion of quantum vacuum (the vacuum state physically speaking) , And associated with a Spin temporal.

The clock of "physical matter" does not allow us to see the other half side of the Spin temporal.

 

We only can imagine scenarios about some hypothetical particles.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

All this reminds me of the Temporal Bell Inequalities --> http://www.pi3.uni-stuttgart.de/index.php?article_id=47

[imatfaal]

When you say they are about to "discover" a higg's boson, that seems odd, because they do not have charge and cannot emit photons, how exactly can they be observed or measured?

The higgs boson is highly unstable and a particle of that mass, spin will breakdown in a number of expected ways - we look for traces of a correct mass particle that does not curve due to the em attraction that decays into particles that curve in the just the right amount for the particles of the predicted decay pattern

 

Also how does it explain the pattern of the uncertainty principal in Heisenberg or Dirac mathematics?

Who said that it does - the higgs field fills a gap in the standard model in which we know that the force carrying bosons of the weak and many of the fermions should be massless - yet we know they have mass. If you understand enough of the dirac lagrangian to see why the higgs is necessary then you should be explaining this to me ...

 

Because if you've noticed, more massive particles are more localized, which is why electrons are on the outside, but they did not have Higg's Bosons to explain that, so how does coupling with Higg's Bosons cause the oscillation mode to differ in such a way that something is less localized? Perhaps something to do with the energy? Even at that point a most of the nucleus is energy, the relative mass of which would be typically greater than the relative mass of an electron. This I think is different than ionization energy however, when an electron gains energy it can enter in a different mode of oscillation, what I'm talking is more of the potential energy required to create the field oscillation in the first place.

 

You could argue "but what about gluons? They are massless." while it may be true they do not couple with higg's bosons, they have a greater relative mass, energy itself can still distort the fabric of space (or at least that's what I'm assuming since Neil DeGrasse Tyson wanted to build an accelerator by bending the fabric of space using lasers made of photons to accelerate particles and he is certified in physics as well as interactions with photons in distorted space anyway), and so gluons are very localized enough to even fir multiple individual ones in nucleons, which you can also see evidence of when an atomic bomb is detonated, they store quite a lot of energy in their bonds (not chemical bonds).

I am not sure about your use of the term relative mass. Energy is a component of the tensor calculations that allow us to find the local curvature that gr shows us is equivalent to gravity. you need to differentiate between the strong interaction and the nuclear force - the strong interaction is the basic interaction mediates by gluons between quarks within the nucleon, the nuclear force is the residuum of that interaction which acts between nucleons within the nucleus

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

SamBridge

 

 

you wrote to this link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72200-backward-time-and-antimatter/page-3#entry727505 :

"What you're trying to talk about sounds like virtual pair annihilation which has to do with virtual particles and not anti matter."

 

I want to clarify this point. In my case the anti-matter is the virtual particle without charge !

Thereafter a charge is allocated to this virtual particle and consumption of the load created matter into our present expansion.

(the idea of ​​a common field in the form of a hypothetical particle called string or M1 on my first pattern)