Jump to content
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

Asymmetry and monodynamic

Recommended Posts

Hi,

This is a great idea. That works as you say.

 

The tense string that you represent (position) is the line of gravity zero and the perfect planeity.

After, a piece of energy (bit), just hit to come the string at rest.

It is what you have demonstrated and it's waht I think too.

 

This is the same rules as "energetic intensity" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69831-could-particles-with-intrinsic-properties-explain-quantum-gravity/page__view__findpost__p__713748

Edited by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

As we are in this speculative field, I wish in the coming days, to complete this thread about this story of asymmetry.

I also hope that I'll not be the only one to address the issue.

______________________________________

From my point of view : The asymmetry is already a normal phenomenon. The flatness (perfect planeity) is the evidence of the total inactivity (lack of energy as we know it). This planeity are these strings at rests (string to therory).

 

444299arnaudantoineandriuespin.png

 

Based on wikipedia, I begin by giving some references below. If you know of others please feel free to supplement.

 

Dirac sea : however, difficulties arise when effects of the electromagnetic field are considered, because a positive-energy electron would be able to shed energy by continuously emitting photons, a process that could continue without limit as the electron descends into lower and lower energy states. Real electrons clearly do not behave in this way.

Dirac's solution to this was to turn to the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously : any number of identical bosons can occupy the same quantum state, as with, for instance, photons produced by a laser and Bose-Einstein condensate.

With a single-valued many-particle wavefunction is equivalent to requiring the wavefunction to be antisymmetric.

An antisymmetric two-particle state is represented as a sum (Superposition principle) of states in which one particle is in state |x> and the other in state |y> and antisymmetry under exchange means that A(x,y) = −A(y,x). This implies that A(x,x) = 0, which is Pauli exclusion. It is true in any basis, since unitary changes of basis keep antisymmetric matrices antisymmetric, although strictly speaking, the quantity A(x,y) is not a matrix but an antisymmetric rank-two tensor.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Edited by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's being modeled seems to make sense for multiple interpretations, but I'm not sure which one it is. It seems like the image in the parent graph represents how the mass increases as you increase in position, which is almost right, it's that mass increases as you "accelerate" your position because you run into a greater rate of higg's bosons as you approach the speed of light which increases the relative mass, but it also seems to describe orbitals around a nucleus. As position from the nucleus increases, the energy is greater and therefore the relative mass is also greater, and it seems to fit the quantized nature of the energy states that asymtote to y=0 probability, but that's kind of a weird interpretation, because that would mean a particle's mass exists wherever its probability exists according to that image, which means every particle has some mass in every possible location in the universe.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nucleus.png

 

Antoine,

 

I have done quite a lot of mechanical vibration experiments, for various reasons. One side issue that came to the surface, was to do with tuning forks. ( musical style. ) . The two halves of the tuning fork oscillate in anti-phase, of necessity , namely the left hand leg would be going exactly out left while the right hand leg would be going out right ( exactly in anti-phase).

 

I believe this could explain the Pauli Exclusion principle with electrons where electrons prefer to be in pairs yet can not be in exactly in the same state. So I presume one electron in a pair will be one direction spin and the other electron the opposite spin ( anti phase ). They would be very happy like the two opposing arms of a tuning fork. With two halves of a tuning fork it is impossible to work in phase. Similarly the electrons cannot ( Pauli exclusion) work in the same state of spin. Rather than some device from outside ( Pauli Exclusion law/rule ) preventing the electrons behaving exactly the same, they require the opposite to work against. Like a couple skating on ice. Try and lean backwards going in a tight circle is impossible, yet with a partner leaning in exactly the opposite direction is shear delight . So the electrons have an absolute requirement for opposite states ( + and - spins ). I think ! Suggest ! Propose !

 

Does this fit in with your idea ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Antoine,

 

I have done quite a lot of mechanical vibration experiments, for various reasons. One side issue that came to the surface, was to do with tuning forks. ( musical style. ) . The two halves of the tuning fork oscillate in anti-phase, of necessity , namely the left hand leg would be going exactly out left while the right hand leg would be going out right ( exactly in anti-phase).

 

I believe this could explain the Pauli Exclusion principle with electrons where electrons prefer to be in pairs yet can not be in exactly in the same state. So I presume one electron in a pair will be one direction spin and the other electron the opposite spin ( anti phase ). They would be very happy like the two opposing arms of a tuning fork. With two halves of a tuning fork it is impossible to work in phase. Similarly the electrons cannot ( Pauli exclusion) work in the same state of spin. Rather than some device from outside ( Pauli Exclusion law/rule ) preventing the electrons behaving exactly the same, they require the opposite to work against. Like a couple skating on ice. Try and lean backwards going in a tight circle is impossible, yet with a partner leaning in exactly the opposite direction is shear delight . So the electrons have an absolute requirement for opposite states ( + and - spins ). I think ! Suggest ! Propose !

 

Does this fit in with your idea ?

I've been tying to come up with an explanation for the Pauli exclusion principal as well, but so far all I can come up with is essentially just like what you come up with, which is just mathematics that describe what's already happening with it, not why it happens in the first place. We know spin has to be conserved, we know the net spin in a pair system has to equal 0, but what's stopping an electron from having .52352 spin? I can't come up with a cause, but perhaps that's because it wasn't a causation in the first place. If an electron had those weird integer properties, it wouldn't be able to sustain it's own existence, so the only explanation I can come up with is that when the universe was created in whatever fashion, only the probabilities that could sustain existence continued to exist, and because of the properties of numbers and number theory, the only things that could be sustained would have spin integers = to half spins or whole integer spins. In other words, the pauli exclusion principal exists because no other system could possibly exist to sustain the existence of particles, it's just the result of infinite possibilities and only 1 working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In contemporary physics matter and energy and forces can essentially be summed up in general as oscillating fields, your basic concept isn't far off, but I would say you should actually test specific parts of it if it were at all possible, string theory has virtually no direct evidence for it's existence.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In contemporary physics matter and energy and forces can essentially be summed up in general as oscillating fields, your basic concept isn't far off, but I would say you should actually test specific parts of it if it were at all possible, string theory has virtually no direct evidence for it's existence.

the same like the "Small signal gain equation" in the stimulated emission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission)

 

dual_se_1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no "in-between" excited states, particles and energy cannot physically exist in any between state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in a way you could describe composite strings as mathematically equaling non-integer energies compared directly to electron energies, but otherwise no, matter and energy only exists in quantized amounts, and it can't exist in other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in a way you could describe composite strings as mathematically equaling non-integer energies compared directly to electron energies, but otherwise no, matter and energy only exists in quantized amounts, and it can't exist in other way.

What about the Quantum field theory ?

 

the pic Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory compared directly to electron energies.

Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the Quantum field theory ?

 

the pic Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory compared directly to electron energies.

Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.png

Again, when comparing the energies of different types of systems you can, but for those respective systems you can't. An electron individually doesn't have non-integer multiples of Planck's constant to create it's enery level, and it's the same for any other particle. A gluon has quantized energies, an electron has quantized energies, a proton has quantized energies. Even though those energies when compared to each other are different, they can't go in between their respective energy levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strings I imagine still have finite frequencies. Since they are the smallest possible energies if they exist, then their energies can go in between the states of particles such as electrons. The energy of a string shouldn't fluctuate that wildly over time, and frankly it doesn't make sense if it does, it's more likely that it's just a small quantity of energy that it has many many different energy states or frequencies that it can attain which when plotted right next to each appear to be a continuous line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strings I imagine still have finite frequencies. Since they are the smallest possible energies if they exist, then their energies can go in between the states of particles such as electrons. The energy of a string shouldn't fluctuate that wildly over time, and frankly it doesn't make sense if it does, it's more likely that it's just a small quantity of energy that it has many many different energy states or frequencies that it can attain which when plotted right next to each appear to be a continuous line.

It's like a "Light-Bridge" to me smile.png

It's begin "Bright"

Thanks

Edited by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Antoine,

 

I have done quite a lot of mechanical vibration experiments, for various reasons. One side issue that came to the surface, was to do with tuning forks. ( musical style. ) . The two halves of the tuning fork oscillate in anti-phase, of necessity , namely the left hand leg would be going exactly out left while the right hand leg would be going out right ( exactly in anti-phase).

 

I believe this could explain the Pauli Exclusion principle with electrons where electrons prefer to be in pairs yet can not be in exactly in the same state. So I presume one electron in a pair will be one direction spin and the other electron the opposite spin ( anti phase ). They would be very happy like the two opposing arms of a tuning fork. With two halves of a tuning fork it is impossible to work in phase. Similarly the electrons cannot ( Pauli exclusion) work in the same state of spin. Rather than some device from outside ( Pauli Exclusion law/rule ) preventing the electrons behaving exactly the same, they require the opposite to work against. Like a couple skating on ice. Try and lean backwards going in a tight circle is impossible, yet with a partner leaning in exactly the opposite direction is shear delight . So the electrons have an absolute requirement for opposite states ( + and - spins ). I think ! Suggest ! Propose !

 

Does this fit in with your idea ?

Good evening.

 

Do-you want to say there's two states in the same time ?

 

Thank-you

 

and perfectly symmetrical ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening.

 

Do-you want to say there's two states in the same time ?

 

Thank-you

 

and perfectly symmetrical ?

 

I am proposing that pairs of electrons, ( as in the orbitals , going up in number in stable pairs of electrons ) , that :-

 

a natural and comfortable state for two electrons is to have opposite spins . (Up and down ) I know their movement is probably very complex, none-the-less they end up with an angular momentum in a direction and the other electron in the opposite direction. I am proposing that two electrons , however they dance about, do so like two arms of a tuning fork which only work by each vibrating in opposite direction motion. IE one arm moves left as the other moves right. Its the only way they can work. With the tuning fork it is built up tension which attracts or repels.With the electron in an orbital there is a repulsion due to electrostatic forces and a movement towards caused by repulsion caused further around the orbital. ( there is a kiddies toy where two swinging balls bounce back and forward rapidly by constantly bouncing off one another while being restrained about a central pivot.)

 

One can generate similar effects with giro scopes and magnets .

 

I have done a number of mechanical model experiments , which all seem to work best ( when in free system isolation ) by working symmetrically in opposites . Also by invoking resonant oscillatory harmonic motion. ( circular or partial arc ).

 

That' s why the skaters Pair can spin together as a pair. or a single can go for a tight leaning circular speed skate around a rink.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a number of mechanical model experiments , which all seem to work best ( when in free system isolation ) by working symmetrically in opposites .

 

Yes. Symmetrically, easy to-do.

But in reality this doesn't work as welll. And I know that you know

 

 

I am proposing that pairs of electrons, ( as in the orbitals , going up in number in stable pairs of electrons ) , that :-

 

a natural and comfortable state for two electrons is to have opposite spins . (Up and down ) I know their movement is probably very complex, none-the-less they end up with an angular momentum in a direction and the other electron in the opposite direction.

 

symmetrically too ?

 

Also by invoking resonant oscillatory harmonic motion. ( circular or partial arc ).

 

Yes. Only one shot into the "very highy tense string", can be enough to calculate that, and all over derives.

But never in the same time. This is the first rule.

One after the other. It is the vector Q

 

The electron can't be the positron.

But the positron can set the electron. From my point of view.

 

For one photon, the opposite direction (asymmetrically), represent the static discharge. (vector K)

Edited by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am proposing that pairs of electrons, ( as in the orbitals , going up in number in stable pairs of electrons ) , that :-

 

a natural and comfortable state for two electrons is to have opposite spins . (Up and down ) I know their movement is probably very complex, none-the-less they end up with an angular momentum in a direction and the other electron in the opposite direction. I am proposing that two electrons , however they dance about, do so like two arms of a tuning fork which only work by each vibrating in opposite direction motion. IE one arm moves left as the other moves right. Its the only way they can work. With the tuning fork it is built up tension which attracts or repels.With the electron in an orbital there is a repulsion due to electrostatic forces and a movement towards caused by repulsion caused further around the orbital. ( there is a kiddies toy where two swinging balls bounce back and forward rapidly by constantly bouncing off one another while being restrained about a central pivot.)

 

One can generate similar effects with giro scopes and magnets .

 

I have done a number of mechanical model experiments , which all seem to work best ( when in free system isolation ) by working symmetrically in opposites . Also by invoking resonant oscillatory harmonic motion. ( circular or partial arc ).

 

That' s why the skaters Pair can spin together as a pair. or a single can go for a tight leaning circular speed skate around a rink.

In a way your tuning fork analogy makes sense, because you treat both the electrons as one system, but the analogy with tension doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, electron field strength is directly proportional to the energy state, but the repulsion isn't caused by any sort of "movement", and there's nothing that "builds up", it's caused by the exchange of gauge bosons.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way your tuning fork analogy makes sense, because you treat both the electrons as one system, but the analogy with tension doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, electron field strength is directly proportional to the energy state, but the repulsion isn't caused by any sort of "movement", and there's nothing that "builds up", it's caused by the exchange of gauge bosons.

Yes, you are probably right. The tuning fork relays, or couples its motion through the cross piece at the bottom of the two arms. Here is where the self coordinating vibration is transmitted. This by tension and compression longitudinal waves. The loose ends are where the large action is.

Its probably the principle of coordinated action is where the model has something to offer to electron pair coordination. There the model might stop, and another one like the rattling kids toy may be more suitable to take up the story.

 

I believe it was Richard Feynman who said in one of his lectures , when discussing how similar pendulums have a habit of self synchronizing when near each other said:

 

 

" its like shoals of fish when they turn nearly instantly. Its Not he said some communication field, its the near neighbor coupling. Each fish has two coupling rules { 1 . i want to be close by 2. i don't want to be closer than 10cm (say) } These coupling rules cause this majical effect when you see shoals of fish turn and shimmer in fantastic formation."

 

 

 

From my personal observations :-

 

I have come to notice how when many coupling happens between dissimilar pairs there is usually an attractive element and a repulsive element both present .

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.