Jump to content

fourth dimension


Recommended Posts

Three dimensional space has 3 axis (X,Y,Z),so to describe 4 dimensional space we can just add another axis (X,Y,Z and E).

The E-axis appears to contain all the energy,e.g. if we have an oscillation on the E-axis with a frequency of (f) and amplitude of (h),it would only appear as a singular point in 3 dimensional space.The oscillations would cause the local 3d space to oscillate on the E-axis,the permittivity of 3d space(or resistance)would govern how far the oscillations spread out.

A photon or any particle would have kinetic energy(in 3D space) + energy trapped on the E-axis.But even the kinetic energy would be a wave on the E-axis travelling through 3D space.

If a photon has enough energy and assuming that energy will take the path with least resistance,creating a positron/electron pair must be the easy option.Having 2 separate oscillations on the E-axis E+ and E-,creating 2 smaller fields in 3D space rather than 1 larger field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe most events in particle physics could be explained as effects of an E-axis.

e.g particle entanglement, where a photon produces an electron/positron pair.Because they were both created from the same E-axis(thread) they are the 2 ends of the same E-axis

the positive and negative ends,with the energy still oscillating between them on a looped E-axis.Even if separated in 3 dimensional space,the separation on the E-axis would remain as (+h to -h) their amplitude.

 

Another way to explain this idea would be to say that 3 dimensional space is made up of pixels(singularity points) each pixel being a point at which the E-axis crosses 3D space and each pixel can oscillate on the E-axis.But 3D space offers resistance to energy transfer from pixel to pixel.

A photon given kinetic energy in 3D space,would travel as a mexican wave from pixel to pixel.

 

there is an experiment here,if you could take a photon with enough energy,and produce an electron/positron pair,they should be entangled.If we separate them in 3D space by distance,then fire a photon at the electron so as to collide,energy from the impact should travel down the E-axis and effect the entangled positron,the energy of photon could be teleported along the E-axis and reappear at other end.

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about having an E-axis,is that all sub atomic particles can de described as being dimensionless on the(x.y.z)=0 and (e)=+h or -h x (frequency),with all particles in the universe converging at point e=0.Therefore all particles have access to an nearly infinite source of energy,which is equal to zero.

e.g. a meson consisting of an up quark and a anti-up quark.If we try to pull the 2 quarks apart,because they converge going from points (+h and -h) on the E-axis to a point at e=0,when pulled apart on the(x.y.z.) axis,they split at a point when e=(+2h and -2h) creating 2 new quarks,while the original quarks can snap back together (x.y.z)=0:e=+h and -h.where as the 2 new quarks would be e=+h and -h,but separated on (x,y,z) >< 0.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

..............(+).......................................(-)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-)......(-)

..............(e-)....................................(e+)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-)......(-)

..............(+).......................................(-)

 

............+4/6......................................-4/6

 

 

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)

..............(e-).....................................(e+).....................................(e-)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+)

 

.............+4/6.....................................-2/6......................................+4/6

 

 

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+).................(-)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)(+-)(-).......(-)

..............(e-).....................................(e+).....................................(e-)...............(e+)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)(+-)(-).......(-)

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+).................(-)

 

............+4/6.......................................-2/6.................................................+2/6

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

..............(+).......................................(-)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-)......(-)

..............(e-)....................................(e+)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-)......(-)

..............(+).......................................(-)

 

............+4/6......................................-4/6

 

 

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)

..............(e-).....................................(e+).....................................(e-)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+)

 

.............+4/6.....................................-2/6......................................+4/6

 

 

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+).................(-)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)(+-)(-).......(-)

..............(e-).....................................(e+).....................................(e-)...............(e+)

.........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)(+-)(-).......(-)

..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+).................(-)

 

............+4/6.......................................-2/6.................................................+2/6

Oh my. This kind of nonsense is why I've been absent from this site for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an oscillating point like particle,creates a field of virtual particles,which come into existence then disappear again.Then two particles in close proximity,will create fields,the strongest field fluctuations being in a straight line between them,like strings.Trying to pull an up quark and down quark apart adds energy to the field/string stretching it until the field gains enough energy to create another pair of quarks up/down + field energy + kinetic energy.

I am working on the premise that virtual particles are similar to particles but have insufficient energy to exist as particles.If they gain enough energy then virtual particles can become particles.

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having 2 separate oscillations on the E-axis E+ and E-

Oscillation is a back and forth motion. That is something moves one way, and then moves in the opposite direction.

 

This means that on a single axis, you can't have 2 separate types of oscillations, as in a positive oscillation and a negative oscillation as they would be the same thing.

 

and assuming that energy will take the path with least resistance,creating a positron/electron pair must be the easy option.

This, as you said, is an assumption. If this assumption is false, then your proposal breaks down and does not work (as it it doesn't explain what we already have observed - namely electron/positron pair production).

 

You are assuming, without any evidence that making a electron/positron pair must be the least resistance because that is what you need to make it sound like your idea would work.

 

Science is based on observation and testing to get evidence for something. Even Einstein made this mistake and assumed that the universe must be static and thus introduced the cosmological constant into his equations. But when he realised that he had no evidence for it, he took it out.

 

However, later on, when science found that an effect that causes repulsion over large distances did indeed exist, they added the term back in.

 

So science does not include terms in their theories that have no evidence, but if evidence is later discovered that does require that kind of term in the theory, then they will add it in.

 

Your assumption is that pair production is the "easy option". What if it isn't the easiest option under your proposal. You have provided no evidence that this should be the case, nor have you provided a logical or rational deduction from your initial concepts that would require it to be.

 

In other words, your assumption is required for your proposal to even be considered to be a valid proposal, but this assumption is unfounded and you present no evidence for it. And remember, this is in light of current theory that does explain these phenomena and observations, without the need for such unproven assumptions.

 

On one hand we have a theory that works, explains these observations and successfully predicts future observations, on the other hand we have something that requires an assumption with no evidence or argument to support it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes your right about my assumption,but trying to pull 2 quarks apart,e.g quark and anti-quark,the energy gets converted into producing 2 new quarks.The principle being that the force between matter and anti-matter separation does not diminish with distance,and that converting energy into mass becomes easier than pulling them apart.

Attempting to accelerate a mass to the speed of light produces the same effect,it becomes easier to create mass than to accelerate,most of the energy gets converted to mass rather than velocity,massive particles decay into smaller mass particles.

If photons gain to much energy,by colliding or some other input,they create electron/positron + kinetic energy.

 

 

If you have energy on E axis e.g 10^18 x h+/2 (with 0 dimension in 3D space x,y,z axis).

Then at radius 0(on x,y,z axis) energy = (10^18 x h+/2)/0^3 positive

at radius 1 = (10^8 x h-/2)/1^3 negative

at radius 2 = (10^8 x h+/2)/2^3 positive

at radius 3 = (10^8 x h-/2)/3^3 negative

at radius 4 = (10^8 x h+/2)/4^3 positive

at radius 5 = (10^8 x h-/2)/5^3 negative

etc.

forming weaker and weaker shells outward down to virtual particles.

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes your right about my assumption,but trying to pull 2 quarks apart,e.g quark and anti-quark,the energy gets converted into producing 2 new quarks.The principle being that the force between matter and anti-matter separation does not diminish with distance,

Actually, the force of attraction between matter and antimatter does diminish with distance. It follow the inverse square law. This is because the force is electromagnetism.

 

The difference between matter and antimatter is that matter has one electric charge and antimatter has the opposite electric charge.

 

and that converting energy into mass becomes easier than pulling them apart.

This is not proof of your ideas. This is just a repetition of the assumption. You can't prove an assumption by just repeating it.

 

Just repeating an assumption does not answer the most important question about the assumption: Is the assumption correct?

 

To answer this you can't just give examples where you think the assumption holds (as this is just a repetition of the assumption).

 

What you need to do is to show how the effect that is under assumption is derived from the principals that have been confirmed.

 

Attempting to accelerate a mass to the speed of light produces the same effect,it becomes easier to create mass than to accelerate,most of the energy gets converted to mass rather than velocity,massive particles decay into smaller mass particles.

This already has an explanation that does not rely on your principals, not only that, it is one of the most tested theories ever. The accuracy and data that exist for the current explanation and the degree and accuracy of these measurements means that you claim otherwise requires a very good explanation and very good evidence that shows a flaw in current observations.

 

Also, if acceleration is producing new matter, then this can be directly tested. There are microscopes (scanning tunnelling microscopes, atomic force microscope and x-ray crystallography) that can directly detect atoms. Thus if acceleration created matter (atoms) then these minds of devices would detect them.

 

As the Earth is in an orbit, it is constantly "accelerating" as the sun's gravity pulls it into a different direction and slow it down in another (thus causing an orbit). However, we don't see extra matter in any experiments made with these devices. So the conclusion is not that new matter is being made, but that the mass of existing matter is increasing.

 

This means that accounting to experiment and observation, the results that should occur (new matter being formed because of an acceleration) does not occur. This means that the hypothisis that these predictions come from must be flawed in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the acceleration that you are talking about is too small,the acceleration in the large hadron Collider at C.E.R.N is produced by the input of vast amounts of energy,the nearer you get to the speed of light the more energy you need to input,because the mass increases,as the mass increases the energy required to accelerate increases exponentially,which in turn increases the mass.By the time the particles are ready to be collided their mass has been increased by a factor of 700 times their original mass.After the collision a vast number of particles are created,most of which are very short lived.

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I introduce spin on the E-axis centrifugal force creating 2 holes in 3D space,one hole on the plus E-axis and one hole on the negative E-axis.Local 3D space becoming charge the opposite.

 

............(+)

......(+)......(+)

...........(e-)

......(+)......(+)

............(+)

 

 

 

............(-)

.......(-).......(-)

...........(e+)

.......(-).......(-)

............(-)

 

 

 

angular momentum on E-axis=zero

 

angular momentum on x,y,z axis becomes greater than zero

 

positive and negative holes would collapse into each other.

 

positive and positive would repel

 

negative and negative would repel

 

positive-negative-positive creating a balance(2 positives spinning around a negative)

 

negative-positive-negative creating a balance(2 negatives spinning around a positive)

Link to post
Share on other sites

the acceleration that you are talking about is too small,the acceleration in the large hadron Collider at C.E.R.N is produced by the input of vast amounts of energy,the nearer you get to the speed of light the more energy you need to input,because the mass increases,as the mass increases the energy required to accelerate increases exponentially,which in turn increases the mass.By the time the particles are ready to be collided their mass has been increased by a factor of 700 times their original mass.After the collision a vast number of particles are created,most of which are very short lived.

The effects of relativity don't have a minimum cut off value. The effect has been detected at much lower accelerations than the LHC, and has been confirmed.

 

If your idea requires that there is a minimum acceleration cut off value, then that must be included as to how and why it is there, plus evidence that there really is a cut of value (which, as it happens, would have to be contrary to current evidence).

 

So, either the effect can be seen at all rates of acceleration (and your argument here is invalid), or you need to provide evidence and reasoning as to why it must be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would state it as a minimum energy/density require to produce particles.Energy being concentrated on the E-axis,e.g if 2 photons collide they will only produce an electron/positron pair if the original photons had enough energy,and the collision will force that energy onto the E-axis.Plus enough kinetic energy to separate electron & positron in 3D space.

Acceleration creates an increase in relativistic mass/virtual mass,because acceleration requires an input of energy,I would express it as energy is dilute mass,and particles are concentrated energy,and that energy concentrated on the E-axis warps 3D space.And Einsteins theory is that gravity is a warping of space.

 

Its not that I am trying to convince you that there is an E-axis,but that it seems easier for me to understand the physics if I imagine an E-axis.I am not so much trying to prove an E-axis,but trying to find a reason to object to it.

 

To make an analogy,I would say that it is like a puppet on strings,the puppet moving in 3 dimensions but the energy is in the strings(the stings being the E-axis).Oscillations in the strings(E-axis) producing 3 dimensional oscillations,but unlike the puppet,3D space can be warped/pulled into the E-axis.

 

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would state it as a minimum energy/density require to produce particles.Energy being concentrated on the E-axis,e.g if 2 photons collide they will only produce an electron/positron pair if the original photons had enough energy,and the collision will force that energy onto the E-axis.Plus enough kinetic energy to separate electron & positron in 3D space.

The problem is that there is evidence of mass increase well below the energy requirement to produce new matter. Not only that, the creation of new matter in the way your ideas require would allow antimatter to interact with actual matter and this release the energy in a explosion.

 

In other words: objects accelerated beyond the required limit to produce matter antimatter pairs would instantly blow itself to pieces.

 

As this has not been observed in object accelerated to well beyond the limit (how else do you think they make actual antimatter), then this disproves your hypothesis.

 

Acceleration creates an increase in relativistic mass/virtual mass,because acceleration requires an input of energy,I would express it as energy is dilute mass,and particles are concentrated energy,and that energy concentrated on the E-axis warps 3D space.And Einsteins theory is that gravity is a warping of space.

Under relativity, this distortion is in the T axis, that is the time axis. If this is correct, then there should be specific effects that occur; namely that you should get a distortion of time as it is warped into 3d space (as warping is a rotation, if you rotate one thing towards one axis, and the axis remain perpendicular, then this means the axis you are warping into must be warped too).

 

As a direct prediction, then we should see a time dilation as we accelerate.

 

This has been measured. Scientists have directly measured the warping of time under acceleration. This means that the evidence agrees with theory and an "E" axis is not needed to explain the warping of 3D space under acceleration.

 

Under gravity this warping should be in the time dimension/axis. This too has been directly measured. Again, warping in a "E" dimension is not needed to explain the observations, and there is no evidence that an "E" dimension exists according to observations.

 

Its not that I am trying to convince you that there is an E-axis,but that it seems easier for me to understand the physics if I imagine an E-axis.I am not so much trying to prove an E-axis,but trying to find a reason to object to it.

The main reason to reject it is it is not needed to explain observations and that there is no evidence that it exists.

 

If either of these cases were true, then it would be reasonable to propose an "E" axis as being necessary.

 

To make an analogy,I would say that it is like a puppet on strings,the puppet moving in 3 dimensions but the energy is in the strings(the stings being the E-axis).Oscillations in the strings(E-axis) producing 3 dimensional oscillations,but unlike the puppet,3D space can be warped/pulled into the E-axis.

The problem with analogies: Is that they are analogies. I could make an analogy to show almost anything seem true, but this would not mean that it is true.

 

For example, I could say that gravity is like having 1,000 invisible pixies pulling you towards the ground. But, this would not mean that gravity really is caused by invisible pixies.

 

Analogies are useful when used by someone who understands the subject matter and is trying to explain it to someone who doesn't, but, you must not confuse the analogy to the actual model.

 

So it might be useful to you to think of an E-axis, but this in no way means that there really is an E-axis. Or, that using an e-axis helps you to really understand what is going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes.there is a T-axis,which gives you 5 dimensions.

E/(x,y,z)/T = energy/volume/time

when the density of energy/volume/second,is sufficient then its a particle,acceleration increases the volume/energy-density.

 

Yes.matter and anti-matter does annihilate(but they do not explode),if electron/positron annihilate they produce photon.Photons can produce electron/positron pair.Matter/anti-matter are transmutable.

Edited by derek w
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes.there is a T-axis,which gives you 5 dimensions.

E/(x,y,z)/T = energy/volume/time

when the density of energy/volume/second,is sufficient then its a particle,acceleration increases the volume/energy-density.

But, if 4 dimensions are enough to explain and account for the effects seen, and that the effects that we should see if your ideas are correct are not seen, then this rules out the need for a 5th dimension.

 

The principal of Occam's Razor is that if two competing theories explain the observations equally, then the simplest one is the one that you use.

 

The point I was making about the T axis, is that it does everything that your e-axis does, and not only that, there is direct evidence for it where as there is not evidence for your E-axis (or at least you haven't provided any that is not already explainable by just 4 axis).

 

Yes.matter and anti-matter does annihilate(but they do not explode),

The sudden conversion of matter to high energy photons would cause the matter the photons interacted with (collided with) to be given a massive amount of energy, typically as thermal (and thus kinetic energy), which would cause the object to "explode". So yes, the matter/antimatter annihilation does not explode, the resulting effect is an explosion and my point remains: If you are right, then the object would be torn apart in an "explosion" (or if you prefer, an uncontrolled, kinetic effect caused by high energy photons colliding and imparting their energy to the particles they interact with -aka explosion).

 

if electron/positron annihilate they produce photon.Photons can produce electron/positron pair.Matter/anti-matter are transmutable.

But the point remains that if this occurred, then your hypothesis could not work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I describe a hydrogen atom as an oscillating proton(positive) that induces an oscillating field around it(on E-axis),and an oscillating electron(negative) that induces an oscillating field around it.A neutral field being created in a straight line between them(this being the strongest part of the field),as the proton and electron come too close,the field strength increases creating a photon,which in turn pushes the proton and electron apart.This creating an illusion that a force carrying particle has been exchanged.If a real photon comes along and is absorbed the strength of the oscillating field increases pushing the electron out to wider orbit.Then again if another electron was to pass by the field around the electron would be fortified by the second electron squeezing the photon out.

And as I said before its not that I am trying to convince you that there is an E-axis,but that I find it easier to visualize the physical process of wave functions if I have an E-axis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.