StringJunky Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, studiot said: Small frames. Interesting thought about frames - care to expand a bit? How about elastic (as in stretchy) frames? Wouldn't that be treating it under SR where spacetime is flat? Edited June 9, 2018 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 2 hours ago, StringJunky said: Wouldn't that be treating it under SR where spacetime is flat? I don't want to pre-emp what Marcus has to say, but if he means what I think he means then the correct term is 'patches' not small frames. And yes that would correspond to his comment about local since patches are locally flat and thus locally SR can be e.mployed. But then that begs the question How small is local or when is the extent too large? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, studiot said: I don't want to pre-emp what Marcus has to say, but if he means what I think he means then the correct term is 'patches' not small frames. And yes that would correspond to his comment about local since patches are locally flat and thus locally SR can be e.mployed. But then that begs the question How small is local or when is the extent too large? Cool. I'm learning. Edited June 9, 2018 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) Indeed, the difference is most obvious approaching a black hole, the gravitation stretches you via inverse square, equivalent acceleration would smash you... But it would be it would be a straight linear smash. I am somewhat rested today, hopefully more coherent! I am realizing how much of my scientific experience has been learning and using existing math... Almost none of my experience is creating math. I will be creating the math to predict the diffraction of my particle passing through a slit. I must consider charge, as an electromagnetic field would make my results meaningless. Assume then that my particle is neutral, so my experiment will have to be driven by gravity. I must first consider the slope of the curve where my particle interacts with the slit, for each particle there will be 2 intersects x and x'. For each particle the difference will be the width of the slit(can someone suggest meaningful nomenclature for the slit width?) I must next find the resultant vector with the m slit as "a" and mx as "b" amplitude of a and b is a result of relative velocity between the particle and the slit. I must also consider that my particle is not 2 dimensional as in the chart, it is always interacting with the slit to some degree, I will need to add this factor as "z". Critique please? Oh my, a cascade of thought... My experiment could be conducted on a macro scale! Neutral bodies, small bb's perhaps could be dropped through a slit, the position of each could be easily controlled and the results very precise! Next thought, devastating or not? "The field" that is my particle is a gravitational field! I think, not devastating... I have stumbled upon something here! Edited June 9, 2018 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 A particle does not have a gravitational field, it is a gravitational field. A particle with no mass is a gravitational wave packet. I need to give thought now to spin and charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Butch said: Indeed, the difference is most obvious approaching a black hole, the gravitation stretches you via inverse square, equivalent acceleration would smash you... But it would be it would be a straight linear smash. No, not really. Quote I must first consider the slope of the curve where my particle interacts with the slit, for each particle there will be 2 intersects x and x'. For each particle the difference will be the width of the slit(can someone suggest meaningful nomenclature for the slit width?) It's a complete mystery to me why your model would include a slit, unless you are modeling diffraction or interference,. But you aren't. Quote I must next find the resultant vector with the m slit as "a" and mx as "b" amplitude of a and b is a result of relative velocity between the particle and the slit. I must also consider that my particle is not 2 dimensional as in the chart, it is always interacting with the slit to some degree, I will need to add this factor as "z". Critique please? Diffraction and interference are not effects of spin, so you are going down a dead-end path. 10 minutes ago, Butch said: A particle does not have a gravitational field, it is a gravitational field. Nope. A photon is not a gravitational field. An electron is not a gravitational field. Quote A particle with no mass is a gravitational wave packet. OK, enough. If you have a model, present it. Give us some result that your model predicts, so it can be tested. Otherwise it's just not worth having you ignore everybody who is trying to correct your misconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, swansont said: No, not really. It's a complete mystery to me why your model would include a slit, unless you area's modeling diffraction or interference,. But you aren't. Diffraction and interference are not effects of spin, so you are going down a dead-end path. Nope. A photon is not a gravitational field. An electron is not a gravitational field. OK, enough. If you have a model, present it. Give us some result that your model predicts, so it can be tested. Otherwise it's just not worth having you ignore everybody who is trying to correct your misconceptions. Yes, my intent was to show that the "spin field" would result in diffraction, my concern was how tiny the experiment would have to be, it occurred to me that a collection of my particles would produce the same results and more precisely in the macro. The collection could be atoms or molecules or even macro objects... Next my particle would have to carry no charge or the diffraction could be electromagnetic. My idea was that I would have to propel my object using gravity(I suppose I could move the diffraction grate), regardless the diffraction would be the same interaction as the chart from earlier, the diffracting force would be the gravity divot (the field reduction between the particles)... My particle then is a gravitational field. I say a photon is a gravitational wave packet and an electron is one of my particles that carries charge. As I stated previously I will have to now consider the nature of spin and charge as applies to my particle. As far as composite particles is concerned, I cannot see that on the horizon... yet. I do not however believe I am following a dead end, I will find what is over the horizon, especially with the folks here keeping me on course! You were correct in your loyalty to spin, I hope you understand however why I stepped away, to see what I would find. Edited June 9, 2018 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Butch said: Yes, my intent was to show that the "spin field" would result in diffraction, my concern was how tiny the experiment would have to be That's something your model must predict. 1 hour ago, Butch said: Next my particle would have to carry no charge or the diffraction could be electromagnetic. Mainstream physics predicts the diffraction pattern, even with charged particles 1 hour ago, Butch said: My idea was that I would have to propel my object using gravity(I suppose I could move the diffraction grate), regardless the diffraction would be the same interaction as the chart from earlier, the diffracting force would be the gravity divot (the field reduction between the particles)... My particle then is a gravitational field. I say a photon is a gravitational wave packet and an electron is one of my particles that carries charge. As I stated previously I will have to now consider the nature of spin and charge as applies to my particle. As far as composite particles is concerned, I cannot see that on the horizon... yet. I do not however believe I am following a dead end, I will find what is over the horizon, especially with the folks here keeping me on course! Well, I guess you have your work cut out for you. 1 hour ago, Butch said: You were correct in your loyalty to spin, I hope you understand however why I stepped away, to see what I would find. My loyalty to spin? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 6 hours ago, studiot said: I don't want to pre-emp what Marcus has to say, but if he means what I think he means then the correct term is 'patches' not small frames. I don’t know what you mean by “elastic” - a reference frame has no such property as elasticity, it’s essentially just a way to set up a coordinate system. Yes, I do indeed mean a small enough patch of spacetime - my terminology was a little sloppy here. 6 hours ago, studiot said: How small is local or when is the extent too large? A patch is usually considered “small” if its dimensions are on the order of 1/a, where a is the proper acceleration. However, this is just a rule of thumb, not an exact definition, and it does very much depend on the specific scenario at hand. 10 hours ago, studiot said: Interesting thought about frames - care to expand a bit? This is quite a broad area of study - is there a specific question you have? 4 hours ago, Butch said: Indeed, the difference is most obvious approaching a black hole, the gravitation stretches you via inverse square, equivalent acceleration would smash you Gravity in close vicinity of a black hole substantially deviates from the Newtonian theory, so in most cases you will not be able to use the inverse square law. Tidal distortions in particular vary with an inverse cube law, in Schwarzschild spacetime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 LOL sloppy terminology can oft be in avoidable when trying to explain things as heuristic as possible lol. Good point on the curved spacetime examples provided. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 33 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said: This is quite a broad area of study - is there a specific question you have? Perhaps my comments about small frames and 'stretchy' frames got mixed up. I think we have covered (not in the strict analytical maths sense) small frames = patches. (gosh isn't it difficult to choose words without special emanings ) Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, studiot said: Perhaps my comments about small frames and 'stretchy' frames got mixed up. I think we have covered (not in the strict analytical maths sense) small frames = patches. (gosh isn't it difficult to choose words without special emanings ) Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ? hoo boy talk about ill defined terminology lol. Are we applying Einstein locality to small patch ? lol this would be involved in how to answer this question "Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ?" Edited June 9, 2018 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, studiot said: Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ? Again, I am unsure what you mean by “stretchy frames”. Do you mean patches of spacetime with a non-zero Riemann tensor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 We also need to define the observer in regards to how we view these patches.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 2 hours ago, swansont said: That's something your model must predict. Mainstream physics predicts the diffraction pattern, even with charged particles Well, I guess you have your work cut out for you. My loyalty to spin? WTF? OK, your faith in the theoretical nature of spin. Yes, I do have my work cut out, it starts I believe with... Why does a wave packet in a gravity field exhibit electromagnetic properties? 2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said: Gravity in close vicinity of a black hole substantially deviates from the Newtonian theory, so in most cases you will not be able to use the inverse square law. Tidal distortions in particular vary with an inverse cube law, in Schwarzschild spacetime. Thanks, I get that. At any rate the stronger the field and the more divergent, the less it resembles acceleration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 13 minutes ago, Butch said: OK, your faith in the theoretical nature of spin. Spin is very real, and has been experimentally confirmed. And this is your conjecture, not mine. 13 minutes ago, Butch said: Yes, I do have my work cut out, it starts I believe with... Why does a wave packet in a gravity field exhibit electromagnetic properties? You have to establish that it does this, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, swansont said: Spin is very real, and has been experimentally confirmed. And this is your conjecture, not mine. You have to establish that it does this, too. Agreed, but I am wrong again! Imagine that! Where I need to proceed is our perception of gravity, even our most precise measurements. I still believe spin units are proper for my field, although it is indeed a gravitational field. Note that our experience with gravity lies outside of x=1, hence it appears weak, however if we could venture "inside" the particle (x<1) we would find no limit on the strength of the field. It seems that this is analogous to the event horizon and indeed it may be an event horizon. That abstract portion of my mind is going full steam ahead and pouring out ideas, but I will gird myself to proceed in a logical and when necessary mathematical manner. Comments appreciated, even discouraging ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 8 hours ago, Butch said: My experiment could be conducted on a macro scale! Neutral bodies, small bb's perhaps could be dropped through a slit, the position of each could be easily controlled and the results very precise! It might surprise you to know that you do not get an interference pattern with ball bearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Strange said: It might surprise you to know that you do not get an interference pattern with ball bearings. Depends upon their mass and size of the experiment, do planets orbit the sun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 48 minutes ago, Butch said: Depends upon their mass and size of the experiment, do planets orbit the sun? It depends on their wavelength, given by h/p If you have some other conjecture, you need to provide a formula Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 10, 2018 Author Share Posted June 10, 2018 26 minutes ago, swansont said: It depends on their wavelength, given by h/p If you have some other conjecture, you need to provide a formula Working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Markus Hanke said: Again, I am unsure what you mean by “stretchy frames”. Do you mean patches of spacetime with a non-zero Riemann tensor? 9 hours ago, Butch said: Working on it. It is clear that that OP doesn't want to take up my offer of a rough guide to tensors. So I apologise for possibly taking the thread a wee bit off topic with my 'elasticity=stretchyness' comment. That was completely additional to my reply about patches. So I will make one more comment for completeness. After that those who wish to take it further should perhaps do so in another thread. The whole point about patches is that you have at least two coordinate systems= frames. The usual method is one of linearisation ie the patch is a linear approximation to a more complicated system. The linearisation is implicit (= hidden in) the transformation tensor. But it can also be done the other way round so the patch is the nonlinear system set in a linear original frame and the equations of compatibility then made explicit. Examples of this are the Smith Chart and charts for radio navigation systems such as Decca and Loran. Then the 'stretchyness' occurs as non uniform intervals between the marking or divisions of the transformed coordinate axes. But it was only the tiniest weeniest bit off topic since my examples are plots of fields, but just from another point of view. Edited June 10, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 17, 2018 Author Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) On 6/7/2018 at 2:00 PM, swansont said: It is literally angular momentum. What it isn't is physical motion I had a thought and would value your input... Might the spin of a particle equal its gravitation? An elementary particle, not a composite. Edited June 17, 2018 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) No, the graviton or even the gravitational field has specifically spin 2 symmetry characteristics. This is confirmable via the detection of GW waves in so far as the transverse and longitudinal wave components behave as to the construct design of the LIGO detectors requires the those spin 2 symmetries to be accurate. I know getting more technical I would lose you lol but the wave components must be quadrupole which is represented as spin 2 under gauge symmetry. (requires the Gell-Mann matrixes for other readers) where as spin 1/2 defined under the Pauli matrixes. Edited June 17, 2018 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 17, 2018 Author Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Mordred said: No, the graviton or even the gravitational field has specifically spin 2 symmetry characteristics. This is confirmable via the detection of GW waves in so far as the transverse and longitudinal wave components behave as to the construct design of the LIGO detectors requires the those spin 2 symmetries to be accurate. I know getting more technical I would lose you lol but the wave components must be quadrupole which is represented as spin 2 under gauge symmetry. (requires the Gell-Mann matrixes for other readers) where as spin 1/2 defined under the Pauli matrixes. Sounds like I am on the right track however... How does spin relate to gravitation in an elementary particle? Specifically an elementary particle with mass of course. Edited June 17, 2018 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.cc169fb67f9c969aeace623286b9b5e6.jpg)
Recommended Posts