Pauli contraction

[GeneralDadmission]

I owe the mediators and forum an apology. To provide some context to the frustration I have projected at those attempting to answer my questions I have been attempting to absorb the mathematics of physics for approxmately 5 years. This has been hampered by a thought experiment exercise I constructed 20 years ago that has become a mental reflex that has till now confused my comprehension of the complexities of standard equations. The exercise made absorbing information from worded physics definitions more practical by providing me a tool to rule out or differentiate divisables but has only been obstructive to my developing understanding of math and it's appropriate language without having identified these as the basis of my study. After years of frustration with this I have finally identified the principals my mental exercise was developed around and can apply this to progressing with the math.

 

The two pivotal principals that define the exercise are the Pauli exclusion principal and the dynamics of length contraction. With this identified I can, with guidance, begin to analyse equations starting with F=ma and E=mc2. My basic understanding of the relationship of these two equations is that Newton identified mass and acceleration as the basic factors defined by forces and Einstein identified that mass is defined by FoR. At one time I constructed an equation to describe the relationship between Newton's equation and Einsteins as (c=ie when -1=m). My understanding of what I was attempting to do at the time was that the equation was intended to provide a means to measure both position and momentum simultaneously so wasn't practical to deconstruct. As a description of the relation between F=ma and E=mc2 as the mediation of pauli exclusion into length contraction the intention of the equation I constructed might be better translated.

 

Through the exercise, I began by attempting to clarify the nature of mass and the condition of forces as mediation of the two identified principals through baryogensis, ie; length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion. Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons. The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron.

 

I will provide no further assumptions as I have not been seeking to make claims but to deconstruct the exercise that was obstructing my progression with physics formulae. At this point I will allow any questions I have to be guided by any feedback on the conclusions I have provided here as summary of the logic behind my approach to the subject.

Edited March 9, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[xyzt]

 

Through the exercise, I began by attempting to clarify the nature of mass and the condition of forces as mediation of the two identified principals through baryogensis, ie; length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion. Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons. The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron.

 

As a description of the relation between F=ma and E=mc2 as the mediation of pauli exclusion into length contraction the intention of the equation I constructed might be better translated.

i don't think you are trying to learn anything, you are simply posting gobbly-gook, you are just stringing buzzwords.

[GeneralDadmission]

i don't think you are trying to learn anything, you are simply posting gobbly-gook, you are just stringing buzzwords.

 

The explanation is straight forward if you attempt at all to follow it. I should have asked what the accepted definition of Newton's and Einstein's equations are in terms of defining force and mass as quantities but I thought that might be obvious to someone genuinely reading the words I posted. If there is something specific in that which you quoted please clarify it.

Edited March 9, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[xyzt]

 

The explanation is straight forward if you attempt at all to follow it. I should have asked what the accepted definition of Newton's and Einstein's equations are in terms of defining force and mass as quantities but I thought that might be obvious to someone genuinely reading the words I posted. If there is something specific in that which you quoted please clarify it.

i read what you posted: it is pure nonsense

Edited March 9, 2015 by xyzt

[GeneralDadmission]

i read what you posted: it is pure nonsense

 

It is a summary of a thought experiment and the basic conclusions. If you can't deconstruct it functionally it is no fault of the grammatical construction. Perhaps you would provide better advice in regard the distinction between Newtonian and Einstein physics as demonstrated by their defining equations and as acceptable under standard theory.

The conclusion I failed to include was that pauli exclusion defines symmetry breaking and is summarised as the equation F=ma. E=mc2 defines a rest FoR to provide mass relativity. If this does not indicate the intention of my question I cannot provide simpler references and you would have to request clarification of specifics.

Why has this been moved to speculations? I have asked what is understood as the relationship between F=ma and E=mc2. I haven't speculated. Only provided my understanding of the relationship between the two formulae. I came here for constructive advice on understanding physics calculus. If you are reading anything else into my posts it is not my intention.

Edited March 9, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[andrewcellini]

Why has this been moved to speculations? I have asked what is understood as the relationship between F=ma and E=mc2. I haven't speculated. Only provided my understanding of the relationship between the two formulae. I came here for constructive advice on understanding physics calculus. If you are reading anything else into my posts it is not my intention.

i think that in order for you to get clear responses to your posts you should try not convey them as if they are musings from the armchair and you should simply ask clear and concise questions which properly use terminology to the best of your ability. the way that i read your opening post, it seemed as if you were speculating and wanting feedback on your idea rather than on learning any particular topic.

[GeneralDadmission]

i think that in order for you to get clear responses to your posts you should try not convey them as if they are musings from the armchair and you should simply ask clear and concise questions which properly use terminology to the best of your ability. the way that i read your opening post, it seemed as if you were speculating and wanting feedback on your idea rather than on learning any particular topic.

 

I am attempting to distinguish appropriate questions and have begun with F=ma and E=mc2 as definitives of mass and relativity. I only provided the summary of my conclusions in order that someone providing an answer might distinguish what I might better understand.

 

My understanding of the basis of relativity is that length contraction mediates the dynamics of fermion proximity into nucleon stabilities of varying limitations. Pauli exclusion regulated exponential expansion into length contraction through baryogenesis.

[Mordred]

Sounds like your getting confused.

 

Lets step back.

 

First off use the full e=mc^2 formula.

 

[latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_oc^2)^2[/latex]

 

[latex]m_o[/latex] is rest mass

p is momentum

 

This link shows how this applies to lorentz

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

 

note Pauli exclusion isn't mentioned here....

 

Neither is baryogenises.

 

Pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions with 1/2 integer spin (fractional) cannot occupy the same space. Bosons have full integer spin so they can occupy the same space. This has to do with wavefunctions and is quite complex. May be better holding off on this for a bit.

 

 

Not really sure how you tied lorentz contraction and the Pauli exclusion principle together?

Are you looking at the Dirac equations?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

Or the Klein Gordon equations?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein%E2%80%93Gordon_equation

Edited March 9, 2015 by Mordred

[xyzt]

 

 

 

My understanding of the basis of relativity is that length contraction mediates the dynamics of fermion proximity into nucleon stabilities of varying limitations. Pauli exclusion regulated exponential expansion into length contraction through baryogenesis.

the word salad mediates the relationship between the cyclotron radius and the height of the foot of the dinner table.

[ajb]

I am attempting to distinguish appropriate questions and have begun with F=ma and E=mc2 as definitives of mass and relativity.

So you are looking for a definition of mass? F=ma gives you the Newtonian notion of inertial mass. Einstein's E=mc2 tells you you must take the inertial mass into account when thinking about energy.

 

You should now also look up active and passive gravitational mass as well as the equivalence principal.

 

My understanding of the basis of relativity is that length contraction mediates the dynamics of fermion proximity into nucleon stabilities of varying limitations. Pauli exclusion regulated exponential expansion into length contraction through baryogenesis.

Fermions are not part of 'basic relativity', you need some further tools of differential geometry, algebra and group representation theory before you understand how fermions are natural in relativity.

 

Anyway, the Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with length contraction, the principal holds for point-like particles so length contraction cannot play a fundamental role.

[Mordred]

Your interest seems to lie into particle physics specifically, however your lacking the needed tools. So I'm going to provide some of them, The nice thing about the next two links is it helps teach the related differential geometry involved.

 

"A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics" part 1

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328

Part 2

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395

 

You will immediately notice both articles is 90% differential geometry.

 

it's a necessary evil.

Intro to calculus

http://www.math.odu.edu/~jhh/Volume-1.PDF

Vector calculus

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mecmath.net%2Fcalc3book.pdf&rct=j&q=vector%20calculus%20pdf&ei=ykb9VMinKcKlyATPxYCIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHaZioCHqqCO924EPbzoMQrUS2fIg&sig2=-YNebVqEZ49Ojn2rgCM88w

[Sensei]

If you want to learn something, ask question in mainstream physics section, and wait for reply, without adding your own speculations. If it's possible to answer, it'll be given.

 

Mainstream physics question-answers belong to mainstream sections of forum.

 

Posting on speculation section suggest you want to make something up..

ps. In physics database history link you get plentiful (hundred) articles to read to be busy for the next couple years.

[GeneralDadmission]

Pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions with 1/2 integer spin (fractional) cannot occupy the same space. Bosons have full integer spin so they can occupy the same space. This has to do with wavefunctions and is quite complex. May be better holding off on this for a bit.

 

 

Not really sure how you tied lorentz contraction and the Pauli exclusion principle together?

Are you looking at the Dirac equations?

 

 

 

The exclusion principal defines the path an electron can take around a nucleus. Of all the atomic components the electron has intrinsic straight line momentum. When an atom is accelerated in any direction should it not be the path of it's electrons that are subject to length contraction? Length contraction is an effect of the exclusion principal the way I have understood it.

 

 

So you are looking for a definition of mass? F=ma gives you the Newtonian notion of inertial mass. Einstein's E=mc2 tells you you must take the inertial mass into account when thinking about energy.

 

You should now also look up active and passive gravitational mass as well as the equivalence principal.

 

 

Fermions are not part of 'basic relativity', you need some further tools of differential geometry, algebra and group representation theory before you understand how fermions are natural in relativity.

 

Anyway, the Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with length contraction, the principal holds for point-like particles so length contraction cannot play a fundamental role.

 

I have not heard the terms active/passive gravitational mass so thanks ajb, I will investigate this further. A point like particle is effected by length contraction because of the particles intrinsic momentum., it is a feature of the path the particle is travelling AIU.

A simple illustration of the way I've understood the connection between the two would provide that the reason an electron can bridge the distance required to fuse with a proton is that the electron's length contraction simply removes the distance across the proton's exclusion zone from the path of the electron.

Edited March 9, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[ajb]

The exclusion principal defines the path an electron can take around a nucleus.

Not really. First one has to be careful with the meaning of a path here. In quantum mechanics a 'path' is not so well-defined. Usually, and especially in the context of bound systems it is the energy states that you are interested in; in particular the energy levels. One can construct the notion of a quasi-classical path using the WKB approximation, but care needs to be taken in interpreting all this.

 

The energy levels are governed by the Schrödinger equation. What the Pauli exclusion principal tells you, and this added by hand in non-relativistic theory, is that no two electrons can occupy the same state. Thus, taking into account the degeneracy of the energy levels, only a certain number of electrons can occupy that energy level.

 

Of all the atomic components the electron has intrinsic straight line momentum. When an atom is accelerated in any direction should it not be the path of it's electrons that are subject to length contraction? Length contraction is an effect of the exclusion principal the way I have understood it.

Do you mean spin by intrinsic angular momentum?

 

 

 

A point like particle is effected by length contraction because of the particles intrinsic momentum., it is a feature of the path the particle is travelling AIU.

I don't see that length contraction has anything to do with spin.

 

The exclusion principal, statistic, spin and the Lorentz group are all related, but not exactly through length contraction.

[GeneralDadmission]

Ok thanks ajb. Too much info to absorb quickly here so I'll give what I've been provided some processing time. Definitely helps to have figured out how I was rationalising the subject.

 

Cheers.

[swansont]

Length contraction is an effect of the exclusion principal the way I have understood it.

 

Then your understanding is wrong. The PEP is a QM effect, as has already been described.

 

A simple illustration of the way I've understood the connection between the two would provide that the reason an electron can bridge the distance required to fuse with a proton is that the electron's length contraction simply removes the distance across the proton's exclusion zone from the path of the electron.

 

Again, your understanding is flawed. The PEP applies only to identical particles. An electron fusing with a proton is not subject to it. There is no such thing as a "proton's exclusion zone". Orbital electrons can pass through the nucleus; and in some nuclei do fuse with protons. (known as electron capture, or K-capture) and that happens without accelerating the atom.

[Strange]

The exclusion principal defines the path an electron can take around a nucleus. Of all the atomic components the electron has intrinsic straight line momentum. When an atom is accelerated in any direction should it not be the path of it's electrons that are subject to length contraction? Length contraction is an effect of the exclusion principal the way I have understood it.

 

There are many things wrong here. Electrons do not follow classical paths. Length contraction does not only apply to atoms, or even things containing electrons. Length contraction has nothing to do with the Pauli exclusion principle.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

There are many things wrong here. Electrons do not follow classical paths. Length contraction does not only apply to atoms, or even things containing electrons. Length contraction has nothing to do with the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

The exercise focussed on conditions between BB and reionization. What I assumed was that fermion genesis forces length contraction conditions on expanding space which precipitated baryogenesis. It is a simplified explanation and as Mordred mentioned there is nothing basic about fermion paths. Important point is I've figured out why I couldn't retain more complex formulae. I'd created a mental reflex that wanted to reconstruct any formulae I tried to absorb if they didn't conform to what the exercise wanted of them. Understanding what it was based on will allow me to keep track of what I read through without distraction. I appreciate the patience I've been shown.

So you are looking for a definition of mass? F=ma gives you the Newtonian notion of inertial mass. Einstein's E=mc2 tells you you must take the inertial mass into account when thinking about energy.

 

You should now also look up active and passive gravitational mass as well as the equivalence principal.

 

 

 

I'll be looking these up next. It may put some of the bits that developed from the exercise into context. It looks like an important distinction to make.

 

Yes I am looking for a fundamental definition of mass. That should supply the basis of gravity theory shouldn't it?

[Mordred]

Fundamental definition of mass is "Resistance to inertia". Now think about that, in terms of the strong force that resistance is due to the binding energy of the strong force, in terms of Higgs field interactions its due to the Higgs field interactions, (only applies to certain particles, (neutrinos, quarks and Leptons) 1% the mass of the proton, the rest of the mass of the proton is the strong force.

Historically there was also electromagnetic mass, relativity replaces this via the energy momentum formula I posted earlier.

The first two are specifically rest mass.

Electromagnetic mass has too many historical connections to inertial mass for you to ignore.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

 

This link covers some of the key points

[GeneralDadmission]

Fundamental definition of mass is "Resistance to inertia". Now think about that, in terms of the strong force that resistance is due to the binding energy of the strong force, in terms of Higgs field interactions its due to the

 

That was the point of the exercise. Fermions can be produced in exponentially expanding space but their fundamental inertia provides the conditions for expansion to equilibrate.

Fundamental definition of mass is "Resistance to inertia". Now think about that, in terms of the strong force that resistance is due to the binding energy of the strong force, in terms of Higgs field interactions its due to the Higgs field interactions, (only applies to certain particles, (neutrinos, quarks and Leptons) 1% the mass of the proton, the rest of the mass of the proton is the strong force.

Historically there was also electromagnetic mass, relativity replaces this via the energy momentum formula I posted earlier.

The first two are specifically rest mass.

Electromagnetic mass has too many historical connections to inertial mass for you to ignore.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

 

This link covers some of the key points

 

I've been a bit busy at work and will be going over these at greater length over the weekend. I have stopped going cross-eyed when I try to follow the formulae. Thanks again.

Edited March 10, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Strange]

What I assumed was that fermion genesis forces length contraction conditions on expanding space which precipitated baryogenesis.

 

Length contraction is caused by relative velocity so I don't see how it is relevant here.

[swansont]

 

The exercise focussed on conditions between BB and reionization. What I assumed was that fermion genesis forces length contraction conditions on expanding space which precipitated baryogenesis. It is a simplified explanation and as Mordred mentioned there is nothing basic about fermion paths. Important point is I've figured out why I couldn't retain more complex formulae. I'd created a mental reflex that wanted to reconstruct any formulae I tried to absorb if they didn't conform to what the exercise wanted of them. Understanding what it was based on will allow me to keep track of what I read through without distraction. I appreciate the patience I've been shown.

 

I'll be looking these up next. It may put some of the bits that developed from the exercise into context. It looks like an important distinction to make.

 

Yes I am looking for a fundamental definition of mass. That should supply the basis of gravity theory shouldn't it?

 

 

The discussion here has been focused on the foundation upon which you have started this exercise. And that foundation (the Pauli exclusion principle being based on length contraction) is fatally flawed. We can discuss the flaw in that foundation, but since all conclusions based on that foundation are necessarily invalid, what is the utility in discussing anything beyond that? Unless they are unrelated, in which case it should be in a new thread. (Also, you must take care not to re-introduce topics which have run their course and been closed)

[Strange]

Yes I am looking for a fundamental definition of mass. That should supply the basis of gravity theory shouldn't it?

 

As energy also has a gravitational effect (as do pressure, momentum, etc) looking only at mass will will not tell you much about gravity. You are basically going back to a Newtonian view.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Strange

[Mordred]

 

As energy also has a gravitational effect (as do pressure, momentum, etc) looking only at mass will will not tell you much about gravity. You are basically going back to a Newtonian view.

Oft times looking at the history of development, leads to a greater understanding of the modern formulas. Particularly in learning how the modern formulas are eventually derived.

[Strange]

Oft times looking at the history of development, leads to a greater understanding of the modern formulas. Particularly in learning how the modern formulas are eventually derived.

 

I agree completely. I think studying history of science (and mathematics and technology) is very valuable. I suspect that we might get fewer people claiming various modern theories are wrong, if they had a clearer understanding of how they came to be.

 

If that is what GeneralDadmission is trying to do, then I encourage it. And kudos to you for helping him (I'm afraid my contributions have been limited to pointing out [what appear to be] some of the bigger misconceptions).