An Intuitive Particle Wave Model

[TakenItSeriously]

well, that's in part two an intuitive model for quantum mechanics. So at the beginning of time particles were created as entangled pairs of matter and antimatter.

 

I realized that if they moved in opposite directions of time, instead of direction, at the beginning of time, then they would simply be in two different time lines which if they were 2D universes and you flipped one top to bottom, then all particles would be aligned but their rotations would be 180⁰ phase shifted, which fits with the helix model. So they could be thought of as two sides of the same coin and they could occupy the same spacetime while they were hidden in phase shift of 180⁰ or different dimensions of time, I'm not sure of the propper way to look at it.

Edited December 12, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Mordred]

I'm afraid this is where your going to need to start stepping into the math. As now your essentially evoking anti-time which relativity shows cannot exist.

 

Antimatter is identical to matter just opposite charge. It doesn't have anti time or antigravity properties. (We can now create antimatter ) Also we can measure antimatter bombarding the Earth from the Sun.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

I'm afraid this is where your going to need to start stepping into the math. As now your essentially evoking anti-time which relativity shows cannot exist.

It wouldnt be anti-time to anyone living in either universe, it would just be time. Neither would they be moving backwards or something like that. they would both follow the same arrows of time such as increasing entropy

[Mordred]

Now that doesn't make any sense. Entropy arrow of time is strictly one directional (forward).

 

These randomized assertians are starting to sound like a sales pitch from a used car dealership than actual science

Edited December 12, 2016 by Mordred

[AbstractDreamer]

Could you say direction of entropy is relative to the direction of time, always forwards and in the same direction?

If you define anti-time as backwards to time (a relative statement, relative to time) , then anti-entropy is perhaps a better description of entropy in an anti-universe (as a relative statement, relative to normal entropy and normal time).

 

Does antimatter exclude the possibility of anti-time? Does it need to be one or the other?

 

Is charge not ultimately defined by chirality?

Is chirality not ultimately modelled by spatial direction (spin with reference to direction in a dimensional volume)?

Is anti-direction just another form of symmetry?

Is anti-matter just a manifestation of anti-direction?

Edited December 12, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[TakenItSeriously]

Now that doesn't make any sense. Entropy arrow of time is strictly one directional (forward).

These randomized assertians are starting to sound like a sales pitch from a used car dealership than actual science

you can base it all on CPT theorem then

 

Could you say direction of entropy is relative to the direction of time, always forwards and the same direction?

If you define anti-time as backwards to time (a relative statement, relative to time) , then anti-entropy is perhaps a better description of entropy in an anti-universe (as a relative statement, relative to normal entropy and normal time).

Well, it would be better if you started from the beginning where if the anti-universe moved in reverse time from the beginning of time then their time line would look like 0, -1, -2, -3 but thats all relative and to them it would be us thats the anti-universe moving in a negative time line.

 

However, I'm starting to drift away from the model because if you continue on, they would be one universe with equal and opposite halves hidden from each other because they could not deviate due to entanglement.

 

edit to add:

But this is an example of the things that will seem a bit inconsistant until you get the whole story. And why the number of attempts to rewrite the models must be several hundred by now.

 

It's like learning physics as an autodiadact where every article you read assumes you already know all about physics, or they are articles of half-truths that allow people to accept or understand it but are inconsistent in tthe larger picture. Welcome to my world

Edited December 12, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[AbstractDreamer]

I have no problem whatsoever with inconsistencies. Conceptual ideas are great if only to expand the mind. Unfortunately I cant help you with the mathematical modelling.

 

Mordred's post #12 is revealing though. Gravity is the key.

[Mordred]

There is a neat way to handle the motion of every particle under GR via the Poisson relations under SO(1.3), This is via action. (this will take a bit)

 

Your all familiar with Newtons Mechanics

[latex]\overrightarrow{f}=m\overrightarrow{a}=m\ddot{\overrightarrow{r}}[/latex]

 

Instead of looking at initial position and velocity, look at the initial position and final position and connect the with two paths. (Doesn't necessarily need to be straight lines) Assign those points [latex]\overrightarrow{r}(t_1),\overrightarrow{r}(t_2)[/latex] The path taken can be determined by action.

 

Were just simplifying and using radius as a coordinate

 

action =[latex]S=\int^{t_2}_{t_1}[/latex][latex](KE-PE)dt[/latex]

 

You can find the details on the last equation at Feyman lectures.

 

http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

 

relativistic motion for an electromagnetic field for Newton potential ie a particle moving in a weak uniform gravitational field

 

[latex]\mathcal{L}=-m_o c\sqrt{1-1-v^2/c^2}-q(\phi-v*A[/latex]

 

For a particle moving in a vertical path in a gravity field then

[latex]PE=1/2m\dot{x}^2[/latex] the kinetic term for a particle [latex]ke=1/2m\dot{x}[/latex]

 

gives with the above situation\

[latex]\mathcal{L}=1/2\dot{x}^2+1/2m\dot{z}^2-mgz[/latex]

 

However that is in weak gravity fields. Without going through all the solutions there is a sort of a master equation very close in some regards to a GUT for motion lol.

 

 

action =relativity-Maxwell+Dirac+Higgs+Yukawa coupling

[latex]\mathcal{L} \sim \mathbb{R} - 1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} [/latex][latex]+i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi+\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid+h\overline{\psi}\psi[/latex]

 

[latex]\mathbb{R}[/latex] will depend on your geometry under GR .SO(3) in terms of action equations. (Poisson group)

 

 

 

Kind of a handy equation but keep in mind action formulas can readily be adapted to pretty much any conditions. Ie Schwartzchild, quantum etc These is just generic formulas

Edited December 12, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

There is a neat way to handle the motion of every particle under GR via the Poisson relations under SO(1.3), This is via action. (this will take a bit)

 

Your all familiar with Newtons Mechanics

[latex]\overrightarrow{f}=m\overrightarrow{a}=m\ddot{\overrightarrow{r}}[/latex]

 

[latex]\mathcal{L}[/latex]

It's been 30+ years and the notation is new but decipherable.

I can remember the basics: head to toe vectors rotated based on PoV, triangles, trig, sum up the components...

[Mordred]

It's been 30+ years and the notation is new but decipherable.

I can remember the basics: head to toe vectors rotated based on PoV, triangles, trig, sum up the components...

cross posted while I was stuck on some latex commands.

 

Before anyone asks. Action is correlated to spin foam under loop quantum gravity.

To include gravity we step into quantum geometrodynamics. Also quantum field theory in terms of action vs fields under the PE term.

 

(hint we only worry about action when there is interactions) a particle that does not interact with say the electromagnetic field will not include the elctromagnetic portion.

 

Now the reason I posted the above is to help you understand the Dirac portion specifically. As this pertains to your OP.

 

This will correlate your electromagnetic spin. Also antimatter. This will help further understand helicity. Particularly under spin 1/2 for electromagnetism

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://physics.gu.se/~tfkhj/TOPO/DiracEquation.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiHyaTxqO7QAhUGxWMKHbfCBg4QFggjMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGyPRPUp_GI0GrlzOGFdDKWws3Bdg

 

key note from the above article

 

"To describe the negative energy states, Dirac postulated that an electron in a positive energy state is produced from the vacuum accompanied by a hole with negative energy. The hole corresponds to a physical antiparticle, the positron, with charge +e.

Another interpretation (Feynman-St¨uckelberg) is that the E = −m solutions can either describe a negative energy particle which propagates backwards in time, or a positive energy antiparticle propagating forward in time:"

The latter portion of antimatter being positive energy antiparticle moving forward on time is the correct interpretation found by producing antimatter. Edited December 12, 2016 by Mordred