Ant Sinclair Posted May 6, 2014 Author Posted May 6, 2014 Ant Sinclair, on 08 Apr 2014 - 01:43 AM, said: If billions are gigas then this looks like F4! The attached gif is Plancks' CMB Spectrum. Your Post; What do you know about: frequencies and period cycles? can you show a "simple" numerical example? Why is this pertinent to my thread? Iwonderaboutthings Atom Senior Members220 posts Posted 17 April 2014 - 09:17 AM Ant Sinclair, on 13 Apr 2014 - 3:18 PM, said: Quarks, Gluons and the tables attached. Your Post; can you show a "simple" numerical example? A numerical example of ?
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) Ant Sinclair, on 08 Apr 2014 - 01:43 AM, said: If billions are gigas then this looks like F4! The attached gif is Plancks' CMB Spectrum. Your Post; What do you know about: frequencies and period cycles? can you show a "simple" numerical example? Why is this pertinent to my thread? Iwonderaboutthings Atom Senior Members220 posts Posted 17 April 2014 - 09:17 AM Ant Sinclair, on 13 Apr 2014 - 3:18 PM, said: Quarks, Gluons and the tables attached. Your Post; can you show a "simple" numerical example? A numerical example of ? I think you are " over looking the simple concepts here" "Forces" are a phenomena, you cannot expect to understand " Cosmology" with a complex model of which you posted without having a solid generalization on "AT-LEAST" Trigonometry. Calculus, Derivatives And imaginary units... Why? Because they help you derive a unit of measure that can be tested " with those constants" ... But I Still have no idea, what your model describes, what it means or what you are doing. I searched this------------->CMB Spectrum, Is this Cosmology??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background I keep asking you to describe in detail what you are trying to express, line per line in your model using --->sentences.. To me your model "looks" of mixture: Minkowski Space time and Special Relativity in one sense, but then you talk about CMB Spectrum which from what I see relates to Cosmology??? It would help here, if you would add more detail to what you are talking about... F4, what is an F4??? Type the entire word, but F4 may just be a term I am not familiar with other than the button on my lap top. Edited May 8, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Ant Sinclair Posted May 13, 2014 Author Posted May 13, 2014 Hopefully this will help Iwonderaboutthings as regards the model. I'm very busy at work so sorry for the delay in replying. Also Iwonderaboutthings F4 is the 208.33ghz (4th frequency in the Frequency Table). Also Iwonderaboutthings; Minkowski Space time and Special Relativity in one sense, but then you talk about CMB Spectrum from what I see relates to Cosmology??? The 'CMB' as mentioned by Planck I believe is the 208.33ghz background generated by Quark-Gluon inter-action and that is everywhere.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Hopefully this will help Iwonderaboutthings as regards the model. I'm very busy at work so sorry for the delay in replying. Also Iwonderaboutthings F4 is the 208.33ghz (4th frequency in the Frequency Table). Also Iwonderaboutthings; Minkowski Space time and Special Relativity in one sense, but then you talk about CMB Spectrum from what I see relates to Cosmology??? The 'CMB' as mentioned by Planck I believe is the 208.33ghz background generated by Quark-Gluon inter-action and that is everywhere. Your model is " incredible" but I think you are going a bit over board in " detail" and complexity.. One thing I am now doing, is never relating any of my models, concepts, nor ideas in general to anything in science I have never seen. For instance, have you ever seen a quark? I have not, this does not mean they don't exist, but if I did see one, I would then be able to describe this in my own way shape and form maybe even completely different than what science would consider legit.. As you can see, I do have a bad reputation here, just " by thinking" Now about CBS Cosmic Backgrounds, again I have never seen this, so I would not have an answer, " at least the correct one." Looking at your model, I can already tell you, that you are looking at physics in an incredible way! But allow yourself time to understand the basic properties.. For instance, this photo resembles much like a " computer screen" in hexadecimal format... But in a different light of things, it also resembles Sacred Geometry. In one area, it reminds me of the Z buffer in computer 3d graphics that uses Cartesian Coordinates, the camera in this 3d world faces you " the viewer" at 180 degrees, its called the frustum.. THEN! it looks like the electron configuration and table of elements.. DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 2 PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT A MODEL IS DOING????? It opens ideas! and that is good! Now, you speak of quarks in this model, then that is where things get a little confusing for me, because again, I have not seen a quark so why would I put time and energy into something I have not seen? Dont get me wrong, it may be something good to do and may help the imagination visualize science much much better it just does not work for me... I hope your familiar with the strong nuclear forces " at least as it is described" in where its mentioned that the source of this " Strong Nuclear Force, is still not fully understood I imagine this force to be not seen by the naked eye... Perhaps, this is where your model can come in handy Edited May 14, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Ant Sinclair Posted May 27, 2014 Author Posted May 27, 2014 Iwonderaboutthings, you mention strong nuclear forces again and attached is how I see the Quark-Gluon Bonds (strong nuclear forces). These are not all the Bond forces as the 126 & 150 Bonds have more than one configuration. Again I hope this helps you visualise what I do as regards the model.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Iwonderaboutthings, you mention strong nuclear forces again and attached is how I see the Quark-Gluon Bonds (strong nuclear forces). These are not all the Bond forces as the 126 & 150 Bonds have more than one configuration. Again I hope this helps you visualise what I do as regards the model. I think you are seeing something totally different than " the atomic" structure. My guess is that your formulating " boundaries" within the domains of Infinity with a mixture of dimensional analysis. BUT I AM NOT SURE HERE...ALL I HAVE ARE BITS OF PEACES... Check out: Tetrahedral number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedral_number Here is another link, the math is simpler! http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/tetrahedral/tetrahedral.html Your model from what I see can be an incredible advantage if you " continue" the venture in mathematics and follow the "path" of your skills. In my opinion, you definitely have intuition dealing with " dimensionless "units" what I mean by units is that again " from what I am seeing, those numbers " appear" linked to squared boundaries of " Space and time, this is a good thing! Please take time to understand the mathematical concept of limits and boundaries.. The reason why you need to understand these is because your models appear to describe boundaries of empty space, thus you will need to include some form of mathematical " concepts.. Have in mind here that since these models are your personal theoretical concepts, you will be required to "show" some pretty sophisticate math.. I promise you, it will take you several years before you even begin linking the math concepts that show the mathematical relationship of your models. Also, you will find it very hard to find people on the internet whom understand these profound concepts! This is not your regular typical science queries, rather they describe " Parallels Dimensions." Of what?? I still don't know this is your model, but what I do know is that space is linked to frequencies, which solves for any distance in that system of domain, I speak of our concept of " TIME " Tracing back to the origin of the source in this case time " the speed of light", takes us to your model! What you have is VERY EXTREME... But again, I am having trouble trying to understand the math involved because all you show are numbers, like I said: In my opinion, you definitely have intuition dealing with " dimensionless "units" what I mean by units is that again " from what I am seeing, those numbers " appear" linked to squared boundaries of " Space and time, this is a good thing! Also, I can already notice that your numbers share relation to exponentiation.. Think in terms of the inverse square law, that is a big hint here! An exponent is something like this: 10^12 means: 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10=1000000000 Think that 10 = 1 and all the zeros are the distance. Your are going to need to learn the following, these will point you in the right directions, BUT! You will need to " Slowly know the math involved... Here is a GREAT LEARNING VIDEO! I EVEN WATCH IT! It is a guide to understand simple math, to sophisticated concepts.. https://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy In the link above try finding the video for the following terms: frequency domain time domain inhomogeneous magnetic field AND homogeneous wave impedance Parameterizing wave impedance electrical engineering... Hope this helps, keep me posted.. Edited May 28, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Ant Sinclair Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 Iwonderaboutthings you say you don't comprehend the math all I have given is numbers - maybe this will clarify the "numbers". Typo 2 Gns/Q = 48 Gns
Iwonderaboutthings Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Iwonderaboutthings you say you don't comprehend the math all I have given is numbers - maybe this will clarify the "numbers". Typo 2 Gns/Q = 48 Gns whats Gns? is Q a particle? In your model, the drawing " The Perspective Is Out Of Range" You model is Z buffered in the Z direction. Even computer graphics have issues with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-buffering You should adopt a new method that allows for all degrees of freedom within Cartesian Space. This photos and the link will help..However! Bare in mind that any described model at least visually does so within a limit or boundary of "perspective viewing" Think about it... http://www.imanishi.com/mayablog_en/2008/08/maya-tutorialthe-camera-work-w.html Your model drawing reminds me much of 3d graphics in where " this exact perspective" remains "fixed." I am not sure if it is because many CGI " Computer Graphics" Artist prefer it this way, or are first introduced to this standard way of mesh and 3d creation. Have in mind though, electrical engineering is much similar in process, it uses a type of 3d creation in vector space.. Edited June 3, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Ant Sinclair Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 Iwonderaboutthings the Q meant Quarks and Gn Gluons. One more drawing to let you visualise the model a little better. I'm struggling for time due to work commitments so again sorry for the late reply.
Ant Sinclair Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 A member of the forum sent me a message earlier so this is for him/all, the last post on Iron should be visualised in 3d. Hopefully this will help you and others.
Ant Sinclair Posted June 7, 2014 Author Posted June 7, 2014 Are you working towards a form of string theory? Having progessed into the model studiot I'm beginning to think the closest tag I would now give it would be a Multi-Symmetry Theory I recieved a mail concerning the energy constant as regards the speed of light so as follows as todays accepted speed of light the constant would be C x Lambda = h Therefore 299792458 x 693964.02 = 208.045x10.12
Iwonderaboutthings Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Having progessed into the model studiot I'm beginning to think the closest tag I would now give it would be a Multi-Symmetry Theory I recieved a mail concerning the energy constant as regards the speed of light so as follows as todays accepted speed of light the constant would be C x Lambda = h Therefore 299792458 x 693964.02 = 208.045x10.12 Make sure to copyright your work Edited June 7, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Mordred Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) after looking over some of your ideas, and it has some merit in the sense that you've placed a lot of thought into this. I would recommend looking over the geometric aspects of QFT. When you get down to it many of aspects of particle physics, QFT, Cosmology, string theory etc can be described by geometric relations. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum field this article covers extensively the various coordinate systems used in various particle related fields. The first couple of chapters is devoted to global and local coordinates. in particular you should look extensively into the Hamiltonian mechanics, which is a canonical coordinate system describing interactions of various forms of interactions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_coordinates when you get down to it string theory is also similar, people are often turned off by the terminology of dimensons ie 11+ dimensions but in truth these are describing various interactions in terms of differential geometry, some interactions have various shapes. or have distinct properties. the calabi-Yau manifold is one example. there is nothing wrong with describing relations in terms of geometry or wave-functions. Its done all the time, just most people don't realize that its going on at more levels and science arenas than they realize the fields book covers some of the aspects of string theory, another good example is the "Mexican Hat potential" used to describe SO(10) Higg's seesaw mechanism as well as inflation. also spontaneous symmetry breaking. see images on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking The Lagrangian formulation is also a coordinate system. The Lagrangian in many classical systems is a function of generalized coordinates qi and their velocities dqi/dt. These coordinates (and velocities) are, in their turn, parametric functions of time in regards to your post though many of the constants already have a coordinate representation of influence, you just need to dig for them and recognize which metrics are in actuality coordinate dependant and what coordinate relations are they portraying On visual representations of Lie algebras: the type Al between the old and the new http://www.ime.usp.br/~spjm/articlepdf/457.pdf Learning Visual Flows: A Lie Algebraic Approach http://people.csail.mit.edu/fisher/publications/papers/dhlin09cvpr.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_group http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/pjpmarques/Julia-Modeling-the-World/blob/master/Three-Body%20Problem.ipynb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gw_waves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#de_Broglie.E2.80.93Bohm_theory Edited June 8, 2014 by Mordred
ajb Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Make sure to copyright your work You cannot copyright mathematics and physical theories like this. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum field "Fields" is a tough book, I probably would not recommend it as the first place to go if you don't know any QFT already. That said, it does cover lots of technical stuff not included in introductory textbooks. I will also just say that there are experts in QFT (mostly low dimensional and integrable theories) at York University. Their library should contain the book by Ryder, which I suggest is a nice place to start QFT. I do not know about the rules at York, but it is usually possible to get access to University libraries in the UK, but you may not be able to take books out. Edited June 8, 2014 by ajb
Ant Sinclair Posted June 8, 2014 Author Posted June 8, 2014 Mordred and ajb than you both for the links and direction. As far as QFT is concerned ajb I've been searching for information on flux densities and their values, the ones in particular Iam interested in are the ones generated by the Universe, our local galaxy cluster(33 galaxies), the super cluster we are in and the Milkyways, are there any resources on this material ?
ajb Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 ...information on flux densities and their values, the ones in particular Iam interested in are the ones generated by the Universe, our local galaxy cluster(33 galaxies), the super cluster we are in and the Milkyways, are there any resources on this material ? You are asking about local and global magnetic fields in the Universe?
Ant Sinclair Posted June 8, 2014 Author Posted June 8, 2014 There are seven field density values in total that I'm interested in, the Suns, Earths, Jupiters, Milkyways, the local-cluster to which the Milkyway belongs to, the super clusters that our local cluster belongs to and finally the Universal Cores.
ajb Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 I am not sure exactly what you are asking for, but what I suggest as you search the arXiv for preprints and reviews. You maybe able to find the information there, or at least find a reference as to where you can find it. http://arxiv.org/
Mordred Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 You cannot copyright mathematics and physical theories like this. "Fields" is a tough book, I probably would not recommend it as the first place to go if you don't know any QFT already. That said, it does cover lots of technical stuff not included in introductory textbooks. I will also just say that there are experts in QFT (mostly low dimensional and integrable theories) at York University. Their library should contain the book by Ryder, which I suggest is a nice place to start QFT. I do not know about the rules at York, but it is usually possible to get access to University libraries in the UK, but you may not be able to take books out. yeah I fully agree "fields is a tough book, unfortunately most of my material is in the form of textbooks which I cannot post, the other concerns is QFT needs a good understanding of relativity and QM as well as a good math level. Mordred and ajb than you both for the links and direction. As far as QFT is concerned ajb I've been searching for information on flux densities and their values, the ones in particular Iam interested in are the ones generated by the Universe, our local galaxy cluster(33 galaxies), the super cluster we are in and the Milkyways, are there any resources on this material ? your going to need to be more clear on what you mean by flux densities that being said once your more clear on what your after the local group is well studied. So there will most likely be information your looking for. One think to keep in mind, most professional level papers do not restrict themselves to one field ie metric system. In other words, you will find that professional papers will have a mix of QFT, relativity, FLRW metric, Einstein field equations, QM particle physics etc, or they will use the various metrics involved in those areas. one paper which has information on the local group though indirectly I'll post as an example, its also a handy reference when it comes to the intergalactic medium, this includes our local group. You will notice that thermodynamics (perfect fluid and ideal gas laws) as well as particle physics plays a large factor in the densities of an intergalactic medium. "The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium" http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3358 if you have the funds to afford textbooks, I wouldn't necessarily restrict yourself to just QFT textbooks, they would be difficult to understand without first understanding QM, particle physics (classical), relativity, and cosmology (for the cosmology related portions of QFT) as well as differential geometry and calculus. one way to think of QFT is relativistic QM. as far as cosmology books go some of my recommendations is "Introduction to cosmology" by Barbera Ryden she does an excellent job bringing new students into the FLRW metrics without swamping one with the more complex math forms. Her usage o the FLRW metric in terms of single and multi component universes is masterful (breaks down how each contributor ie dark energy, gravity, dark matter etc) influences the expansion history of the universe. "Modern Cosmology" by Scott Dodelson is also excellent. though a bit more advanced. Cosmology The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure by Peter Coles and Francesco Lucchin is also excellent An IntroductionTo Modern Cosmology by Andrew Liddle decent GENERAL RELATIVITY Robert M . Wald is good any books by David Griffith is extremely handy including his QED, and introduction to particle physics as well as his QM book Introduction to QM, Introduction to particle physics, introduction to electrodynamics etc he has several books all well written Quantum Field Theory by Mark Srednicki is also good "Towards the mathematics of Quantum field theory" Frederic Paugam is excellent now not to leave you hanging and wanting I have a website that I have numerous articles and in one case a free textbook for you. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde he has released this book for the general public here is some articles that are near textbook style http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~kirillov/mat552/liegroups.pdf Introduction to Lie Algebra my signature more specifically the cosmology101 link has more related material once your more clear on what your looking into on flux densities, I can probably help hope this material also helps
ajb Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 An IntroductionTo Modern Cosmology by Andrew Liddle decent Liddle's book I highly recommend, it requires only fairly standard undergraduate physics and no general relativity.
Mordred Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) agreed, for an introductory level it is excellent, much on par with Barbera Rydens book. Scott Dodelson's book requires some extensive math skills and familiarity with GR metrics Edited June 9, 2014 by Mordred
Ant Sinclair Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 After getting "held" up with Cu I decided to look at H2 & He, I had a niggle with Fe but thats now gone. Please see attachment.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 You cannot copyright mathematics and physical theories like this. "Fields" is a tough book, I probably would not recommend it as the first place to go if you don't know any QFT already. That said, it does cover lots of technical stuff not included in introductory textbooks. I will also just say that there are experts in QFT (mostly low dimensional and integrable theories) at York University. Their library should contain the book by Ryder, which I suggest is a nice place to start QFT. I do not know about the rules at York, but it is usually possible to get access to University libraries in the UK, but you may not be able to take books out. I will go ahead and place a separate topic to this copy right reply..
Ant Sinclair Posted June 14, 2014 Author Posted June 14, 2014 After looking at the 1st couple of molecules it seems the hexa-quark resembles somthing, please see attachment.
Ant Sinclair Posted September 24, 2014 Author Posted September 24, 2014 Mike Smith and a few others have mailed me as to how I was coming along with this thread and after a long spring and summer at work have been able recently to start looking at it again. The Quark/Gluon speculation has led me to a "take" on the Universe(please see attached drawing). Iam working on this at the moment and will post more details later. 1
Recommended Posts