The Infinitesimal Radii of Point Particles Already Explains Mass-Volume and Gravitation

[metacogitans]

As long as these two conditions are true, a chain of mathematical certainties involving infinitesimals follows:

1. In their simplest form, the simplest fundamental particle constituents of matter have an infinitesimal radius.

2. All fundamental forces propagate as waves, which mediate all interactions between matter.

 

Now, from that, we can start making deductions from applying the math of infinitesimals to time.

 

Consider an infinitesimal increment of time, and the change in a particle's velocity during it. Over an infinitesimal increment of time, we still have to account for the the velocity of the particle in two given instants:

- the velocity of the particle the instant the infinitesimal increment of time begins;

- the velocity of the particle the instant the infinitesimal increment of time ends.

- then we have to consider the increment of time itself - being the single instant between two given instants.

 

A change in velocity means the particle was accelerating and must have traveled at least an infinitesimal distance during the increment of time, and this instantaneous acceleration can be given in terms of infinitesimals:

 

Given that all force-carrying waves ultimately originate from a particle that has interacted with a force-carrying wave, the number of the waves' points of origin is finite. The number of wavefronts on the surface of an infinitesimal point particle would number all particles in the universe within a cosmological distance that can still be crossed at c , which no matter how minuscule in intensity, is still at least infinitesimal, making it equally as significant as everything else when over an infinitesimal increment of time.

 

The center of intensity of each wave on the surface of the point particle moves across an infinitesimal degree of the point particle's circumference during the infinitesimal increment of time; the change in the wave's center of intensity on the particle's surface could be described as directional vectors across the surface of the particle each with only an infinitesimal scalar value. The sum of these vectors collectively determines the change in the particle's direction due to acceleration during the infinitesimal increment of time, reducing to a single direction, which the direction of the particle's starting velocity will deviate from.

 

Due to the mathematical nature of infinitesimals, waves of force would also only be able to travel an infinitesimal distance during an infinitesimal increment of time, and would travel at the same speed as particles. As the particle not only travels an infinitesimal distance, but also changes direction, it would travel into more waves of force the instant it began moving, changing its direction yet again during the same infinitesimal increment of time,

 

Since the radius of the point particle is infinitesimal, its radius is the same as the distance it travels during an infinitesimal increment of time. Since the particle is accelerated during the infinitesimal increment of time, if the particle's speed increased (rather than decreased) the value it increased by would also be infinitesimal -- so if the particle has to at least travel an infinitesimal distance during the increment of time anyways, but its speed also increases during that increment of time (by an infinitesimal amount), the particle would be traveling twice its radius, and therefore traveling faster than light during that increment of time.

Every time the particle's path curves into waves of force making contact with the particle's surface, it is accelerated again, and must travel a distance equal to its own radius yet again in the same infinitesimal increment of time. The particle would continue accelerating, until traveling across a given volume of space where all waves of force had already been absorbed/reflected during the increment of time, and the particle would travel across it at a constant velocity for a distance equal to its radius, after which the infinitesimal increment of time will have passed.

 

If the particle moves a distance less than its radius and is accelerated by waves force, it must move an infinitesimal distance again.

The pocket of 'empty space' left by a point particle, where all waves of force have been absorbed/reflected, is what gives massive particles the property of mass-volume.

 

This does not conflict with special relativity, as the speed of light is never exceeded in a single direction.

Edited August 30, 2016 by metacogitans

[swansont]

As long as these two conditions are true, a chain of mathematical certainties involving infinitesimals follows:

Are you going to post any of this math?

 

Every time the particle's path curves into waves of force making contact with the particle's surface, it is accelerated again

Why curved? is this an extension of your previous thread on coiled trajectories, about which you actually showed nothing at all?

[metacogitans]

Are you going to post any of this math?

 

 

Why curved? is this an extension of your previous thread on coiled trajectories, about which you actually showed nothing at all?

Alright..

h is infinitesimal..

 

just a little refresher on infinitesimals quick:

 

So a point particle has a radius of h

 

Instead of saying h seconds, let's define an infinitesimal increment of time as the time it takes for light to travel h meters

Since that length is infinitesimal, its the same length as a point particle's radius.

 

Light can't accelerate, and the distance it travels in an infinitesimal increment of time is only h

 

Particles can accelerate, so if a particle's velocity changes during an infinitesimal increment of time, its speed or direction had to change by an infinitesimal distance.

 

Due to the inertia the point particle already had before, it was already going to travel a distance of h over an infinitesimal increment of time (moving at all means it already traveled h ); if it also accelerated during that increment of time however, it had to travel a distance of h again.

 

A point particle can travel a distance many times its own radius in an infinitesimal increment of time by curving into waves of force which continually accelerate it. A point particle, in this manner, seemingly occupies volume,

 

Matter can travel greater distances than light over an increment of time, it just can't travel faster than light in the same direction.

Edited August 30, 2016 by metacogitans

[studiot]

I believe my great great great great great grandfather's dog once mentioned something about angels and pinheads.

[metacogitans]

Why curved? is this an extension of your previous thread on coiled trajectories, about which you actually showed nothing at all?

I'm still building on the idea that there are no attractive waves of force, only repulsive, and that there is a geometrical explanation for properties like electric charge.

[Mordred]

I'm still building on the idea that there are no attractive waves of force, only repulsive, and that there is a geometrical explanation for properties like electric charge.

Good luck in showing these kinematics of repulsion acting as attraction. I would love to see how you can possibly show this mathematically and follow the conservation rules.

 

Describing infinitesimals does not show the kinematics.

 

Feel free to mathematically show how the Displacement of any object can be in the opposite direction as the acceleration.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

Alright..

h is infinitesimal..

 

just a little refresher on infinitesimals quick:

I am unfamiliar with math that allows h = 0.5h or 23h, for any value other than 0.

 

What course teaches this about infinitesimals? My experience was in learning calculus. Do you have any sort of citation?

[metacogitans]

I am unfamiliar with math that allows h = 0.5h or 23h, for any value other than 0.

 

What course teaches this about infinitesimals? My experience was in learning calculus. Do you have any sort of citation?

If for some reason you end up with a bizarre number of infinitesimals when solving an equation, it is important to keep track of them until you can simplify them out.

However, leftover infinitesimals, reduce to h anyways.

What do you mean by 'for any value other than 0'?

 

With h as a value of something in the physical world, it probably isn't as disregard-able as it is with a hypothetical math problem.

If the radius of particles is actually infinitesimal, the broader implications could be never-ending. It's not clear to say one way or the other whether it is/isn't or could/couldn't be true, being how abstract of a concept it is.

 

A lot of popular and accepted physics seems to suggest/imply point particles to some extent, like the fermi exclusion principle, or any of the interpretations of modern physics that don't involve extra dimensions or wormholes.

Edited August 31, 2016 by metacogitans

[Mordred]

Ah so your going to ignore the actual questions we posed. I'm certainly positive that Swansort and myself know more about infinitesimal sets than you do.

 

The Levi Civita connection is an infinitesimal field.

[metacogitans]

There's a lot of things that would make more sense if point particles turned out to be the simplest constituents of matter;

Such as why particles behave sometimes as though they lack mass or volume; and having a spherical surface and an infinitesimal radius simultaneously would explain how a particle is able to consistently permeate its own electromagnetic field.

[Mordred]

The bullet particle analogy. Doesn't make any difference when it comes to how a field behaves in terms of kinematics.

 

Are you going to answer the questions?

[metacogitans]

Ah so your going to ignore the actual questions we posed. I'm certainly positive that Swansort and myself know more about infinitesimal sets than you do.

 

The Levi Civita connection is an infinitesimal field.

I know the thread is very amateurish, but after spending like 6 hours typing it I couldn't just delete it without getting some kind of feedback for it. whether good or bad.

I never mind harsh criticism if I'm learning something too

[Mordred]

The first thing you need to adress is how you can possibly have a change in motion in the opposite direction as the acceleration.

 

Doesn't matter if you treat particles as point like or waves. Neither treatment will have that characteristic. (opposite to what the laws of physics would predict)

 

The Levi Civita connection is used extensively in GR. It includes the set of infinitesimal and infinite numbers.

 

The SO (1.3) Lorentz group also includes the sets of infinitesimal and infinite numbers. This is the gauge group that handles motion. Newtonian inertia and GR details are contained in this group.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Mordred

[metacogitans]

Good luck in showing these kinematics of repulsion acting as attraction. I would love to see how you can possibly show this mathematically and follow the conservation rules.

 

Describing infinitesimals does not show the kinematics.

 

Feel free to mathematically show how the Displacement of any object can be in the opposite direction as the acceleration.

 

The first thing you need to adress is how you can possibly have a change in motion in the opposite direction as the acceleration.

 

Doesn't matter if you treat particles as point like or waves. Neither treatment will have that characteristic. (opposite to what the laws of physics would predict)

The idea I had is that since waves are constantly accelerating a particle from multiple opposing directions, attraction would result as the direction of least repulsion.

Conservation rules are one of the main reasons I think these concepts actually make sense.

 

The reason I think charge and attraction have a geometrical basis is because it makes more sense to me than an ever-permeating attractive field 'because that's just what charged particles do'; a 'pull' entirely lacking a 'push' is almost tantamount to particles time traveling backwards.

Clockwise/counterclockwise oriented electromagnetic fields and lines of forces from mass displacing a medium makes sense geometrically and mechanically.

 

Anyways, I'll take another swing at something more mathematically technical for you guys, I'm going to end up trying to just improvise tensor calculus and I'll end up getting laughed at.

Edited August 31, 2016 by metacogitans

[Mordred]

I honestly recommend you look at how charge is handled in the Maxwell equations. Charge can be treated as simply a vector. These vectors follow the conservation laws regardless of how infinitesimal you examine. Fields include the sets of all possible values.

 

 

We already can treat any field in terms of geometry. All particle physics interactions can be described by geometric relations.

 

So I really don't see how the infinitesimal aspects in any way help your model proposal. Geometric charge relations have been well examined and is already being used.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

 

Metacogitans

 

there are no attractive waves of force, only repulsive

 

Interesting how Nature in the form of animal biology displays the reverse.

 

Our muscles can only contract (pull), they cannot push.

 

So muscular activity in our bodies is determined by the balance between two opposing muscles.

Muscles work in pairs, pulling in opposite directions.

[swansont]

like the fermi exclusion principle

 

 

Another thing with which I am unfamiliar, and for which I require a citation. As far as I can tell you're just making all of this up.

[Sensei]

I'm still building on the idea that there are no attractive waves of force, only repulsive, and that there is a geometrical explanation for properties like electric charge.

 

Okay. It's your vision.

But what with your experimental knowledge in this area?

Can you tell us, using your own words, how quantum physicists are checking what is charge of some stable or unstable particle... ?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Metacogitans

 

You have been asked direct questions by Mordred, Swansont and Sensei; please make an attempt at answering these before expounding any further.

 

thanks.

 

[metacogitans]

Alright you guys, I've made some pictures:

Well, that's about where I hit a speed bump, because much of the math needed after that is beyond me; to mathematically explain how point particles can demonstrate properties of mass and volume, a set of tensor equations and probability functions needs to be formulated for the wave dynamics of reflected waves off the surface of a sphere as they pertain to probable location and direction of waves of force and fluctuations over infinitesimal distances.

 

It'd probably have to translate existing energy-density wave equations so that wave intensity is expressed as the probable distribution of wave-fronts across the surface of a sphere, reducing to a single directional vector lacking magnitude. A tensor would be assigned at each wave front on the surface of the sphere, with a 2-dimensional directional value for what direction the wave-front is moving across the surface of the sphere, and magnitude values for wave angle, degree of bend, and redshift/blueshit to determine probability.

Edited September 9, 2016 by metacogitans

[swansont]

What is the nature of these waves of force?

 

If the particle takes an incremental step in one increment of time, how is it that it moved numerous steps (multiple waves of force) in that single increment of time. If it went 10 steps, that should be 10 time increments, since you have decreed that it moves one increment per increment of time.

 

I still think you don't understand what infinitesimal is. You are describing a quantization that has a discrete value (an increment). I can take a number and e.g. divide it by 2 and it will be half as large, and keep doing that. You apply the limit as the value becomes zero. You don't reach a limit where it can't get any smaller.

 

If these distances and times are quantized, show us the theory that predicts this quantization.

[metacogitans]

What is the nature of these waves of force?

 

If the particle takes an incremental step in one increment of time, how is it that it moved numerous steps (multiple waves of force) in that single increment of time. If it went 10 steps, that should be 10 time increments, since you have decreed that it moves one increment per increment of time.

 

I still think you don't understand what infinitesimal is. You are describing a quantization that has a discrete value (an increment). I can take a number and e.g. divide it by 2 and it will be half as large, and keep doing that. You apply the limit as the value becomes zero. You don't reach a limit where it can't get any smaller.

 

If these distances and times are quantized, show us the theory that predicts this quantization.

Waves of force reflect off the particle's surface on contact, transferring momentum to the particle.

 

If the particle travels through any waves, momentum has to transfer from them to the particle; the momentum can not be stored until the next increment of time.

 

Even though the momentum will only cause the particle to move an infinitesimal distance, this is still significant, as that is the particle's radius.

 

Since the increment of time is infinitesimal, both waves of force (which might be traveling at the speed of light) and particles can only travel an infinitesimal distance that is algebraically equivalent to the other.

 

It is paradoxical, but it would imply that during an infinitesimal increment of time, particles travel faster than light. However, because the only outcome is for the particle to travel back across a region it has already been through, it can't actually out-pace light, as the particle has to backtrack during subsequent infinitesimal increments of time.

 

I still think you don't understand what infinitesimal is. You are describing a quantization that has a discrete value (an increment). I can take a number and e.g. divide it by 2 and it will be half as large, and keep doing that. You apply the limit as the value becomes zero. You don't reach a limit where it can't get any smaller.

 

If these distances and times are quantized, show us the theory that predicts this quantization.

Infinitesimals in differential calculus are always over an increment, such as (x+h) - (x)

All that matters is that it is non-zero, so momentum transferred to the particle by waves of force has to move the particle by a non-zero distance, which is algebraically equivalent to the particle's radius if it is a point particle.

Edited September 9, 2016 by metacogitans

[metacogitans]

I think there may be a simple proof for this actually:

 

Because there is no objective passage of time apart from 'stuff happening', the only physical metric for time is the distance electromagnetic radiation travels proportional to other electromagnetic radiation.

 

An infinitesimal increment of time would be defined as all electromagnetic radiation traveling an infinitesimal distance. How particles react as a result has no discretion for time, and will continue reacting until no longer within a distance of electromagnetic waves to react with.

Edited September 10, 2016 by metacogitans

[swansont]

I think there may be a simple proof for this actually:

 

Because there is no objective passage of time apart from 'stuff happening', the only physical metric for time is the distance electromagnetic radiation travels proportional to other electromagnetic radiation.

 

An infinitesimal increment of time would be defined as all electromagnetic radiation traveling an infinitesimal distance. How particles react as a result has no discretion for time, and will continue reacting until no longer within a distance of electromagnetic waves to react with.

 

 

I don't think nonsensical word salad counts as a simple proof.

Waves of force reflect off the particle's surface on contact, transferring momentum to the particle.

I asked about the nature of these waves of force, not a restatement of your claim. What exerts the force? What interaction is it?

 

If the particle travels through any waves, momentum has to transfer from them to the particle; the momentum can not be stored until the next increment of time.

 

Even though the momentum will only cause the particle to move an infinitesimal distance, this is still significant, as that is the particle's radius.

 

Since the increment of time is infinitesimal, both waves of force (which might be traveling at the speed of light) and particles can only travel an infinitesimal distance that is algebraically equivalent to the other.

 

It is paradoxical, but it would imply that during an infinitesimal increment of time, particles travel faster than light. However, because the only outcome is for the particle to travel back across a region it has already been through, it can't actually out-pace light, as the particle has to backtrack during subsequent infinitesimal increments of time.

How about answering my question? Show that these increments are quantized.

 

Infinitesimals in differential calculus are always over an increment, such as (x+h) - (x)

All that matters is that it is non-zero, so momentum transferred to the particle by waves of force has to move the particle by a non-zero distance, which is algebraically equivalent to the particle's radius if it is a point particle.

You also take the limit as h goes to zero. It is not an increment.

 

A point particle has no radius. A particle with a radius is not a point particle.

[metacogitans]

 

 

 

I don't think nonsensical word salad counts as a simple proof.

 

I asked about the nature of these waves of force, not a restatement of your claim. What exerts the force? What interaction is it?

 

 

How about answering my question? Show that these increments are quantized.

 

 

You also take the limit as h goes to zero. It is not an increment.

 

A point particle has no radius. A particle with a radius is not a point particle.

 

 

 

 

You also take the limit as h goes to zero. It is not an increment.

 

A point particle has no radius. A particle with a radius is not a point particle.

 

h is still non-zero. As part of a derivative, h can only be an increment; for example the derivative 2xh+h^2 / h simply means that for every increment of h, there is an increase by 2xh+h^2

 

Because a metric for distance can only be defined by a relation between particles, the radii of the simplest fundamental particle constituents of matter could only have a value described as non-zero.

 

I don't really feel like replying to the rest of your post

Edited September 12, 2016 by metacogitans