| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 01:27:02 PM |
| Object: |
A Small Particle-Free Field Theory. |
A Small "Particle-Free" Field Theory.
by: Douglas Eagleson, 2005
********************************************
Particle-free implies a background dependence.
Worry if this is the size of common theory
necessity.
********************************************
An electron added to the negative cloud of
electrons must have a force to "overcome" the
electrostatic force.
Likewise the nuclear force must overcome the
electrostatic force of the nucleon charges.
In the relations of nature the exact thing to
consider is the word, "overcome". A state
of competitive forces is implied, while the
means to measure is without relation to anything,
but the common force.
And so the mass of the field is the measure of the
force while the constituient measures that to which
force applies.
And the inference of the electrostatic field of the
neutron is left a vain goal of quantum theory.
A cause to a charge and a cause to its change
is an exact and certain relation of theory, much
like that of the discovery of force itself. A cause
to nature's behavior is ascribed.
And to call the field's mass in relation to the
constitiuent a common element of theory,
without stating its exact relation to the quanta
appears another vain goal of quantum theory.
Imagine the quanta as the content of that called
space. It may be either material of that of the
force itself. We call both quanta, because the
interaction appear the abstract alteration of the
space.
And in relation to two vain goals, charge's appearence
and field's material effect the single theory of the
formation is stated.
A small theory to allow all things formed to be given
cause. Imagine. A small theory for the interaction which
displays charge appearance or disappearance, for the
force of nuclear appears inseperable from electrostatic
while constitiuent's masses appear the solution to the
dilemma of consitiuent observation.
A theory where the force disappears or appears in relation
to any nonforce quanta.
Stating this goal implies the identification of the relation
of nature given true existence. A force will disappear
while another will appear in exact relationship to this
identified constituient differential. For all interactions
display the mass's alteration.
A string is identified. An uncommon variation.
------<
A small thing to imply the relation's formulation as the
cause to the mass difference seen in any interaction.
Allowed states apear.
And the SU(2) associated with the system of two
states interacting. An eigenvalue is commonly interpreted as
the cause to the spectra.
Allow the charge's effect to always exist in relation to
the spectra's necessity.
An eigenvalue now appears with units of model
associated necessity.
__________________________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
A symbol is posted to imply the lack of consitent
interpretation of eigenvalues in quantum theory. A common
spin is held to exist.
And the common alteration is a spin quanta's existence's
necessity. Implying the formulation of spin to force as the
common eignevalue unit. A rate of spin appearance.
Assuming the models of charge interaction are consistently
assuming such relationship of the spin to the mass of the field,
a transformation operator is proposed for all such theory.
O= su
A symbol is assigned to the common su algebra. And the
...................................??????question markers here.
Interpretation of the su is real vague in theory of matrices.
A common scattering matrix eigenvalue is to be used to
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
..
A symbol for the transformed scatter is used again.
A force eigenvalue.
Implying the spin as a rather..............................??????
type of eigenvalue. Inconsistent interpretation is used
to qualify various models.
And here the common qualification was spin state units
of the integer kind. As near as I can see eigenvalues are state
variables without relationship in theory.
A poor test of the theory is to apply.
Making the symbol "..........................??????????"
A theory free spin relation of nature. "All force is held
appearing and disappearing by a state necessity."
Read the last sentence as the common class of quantum theory.
And I propose the relation's existence where interaction is independent
of force's existence.
And to allow the su operator makes the SU abstraction a single
cause to exist different. Ah hah loaded words. Abstract cause
to exist is the difference between su and SU.
And in applied theory, a force may cause necessity of
field sufficiency.
I will state the law again in bold letters.
A FORCE MAY CAUSE NECESSITY OF FIELD SUFFICIENCY.
A distinct transformation.
And this allows the operator O.
Making the eignevalues now interpreted as SU(2) force
differentials.
Making this class of interaction theory complete in every
a simple sense of all classes of scattering belonging to
interaction.
Abstract interaction is now inclusive of any difference in states,
and not just the "...........................?????????" field's states.
A common symbol is given to ensure the interpretation of
the field as free of the operator assumed.
A particle state in relation to the next particle is held immutable,
while in fact a space difference is independent of the contents.
A rather standard model like relation is this
"......................????????"
the cause to the next group's existence.
A group is now only mathematically interpreted.
SU(2)
Eigenvalues of force necessity. a constant
of a matrix is assumable.
It really works.
fermions are no longer related to the next class.
A new class of theory smaller and more accurate with respect to
observable nature is proposed.
A string is this class, abstracted once more than commonly
thought of.
A string independent of space's content.
***************************************************
And so the theory is given formulation as only
a single SU(2) group for the class of operator.
And the cause to the operator is the background
of course. A rather abstractly defined thing which
causes the restriction to thinking if not careful.
In geometry the SU(N) is surely allowed. And if
N is not the particle, then what if?
What if the theory always proves true.
***************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: A Small Particle-Free Field Theory. |
17 Mar 2005 02:12:55 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1111087622.852486.248690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
An electron added to the negative cloud of
electrons must have a force to "overcome" the
electrostatic force.
ok
Likewise the nuclear force must overcome the
electrostatic force of the nucleon charges.
ok
In the relations of nature the exact thing to
consider is the word, "overcome". A state
of competitive forces is implied, while the
means to measure is without relation to anything,
but the common force.
You are losing coherence here.
And so the mass of the field is the measure of the force
I think you just lost coherence entirely.
Mass can not be force. Mass might be convertable to force divided by
acceleration. F=ma --> m=F/a, but mass is not force. You seem to be
confusing terms.
while the constituient measures that to which
force applies.
[it seems to get worse from here on.]
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Small Particle-Free Field Theory. |
17 Mar 2005 04:11:40 PM |
|
|
a mass of the field is a measure of the force is implied by the
relationship stated. I speak in absolute terms of the inference of
force. f=ma is the exact inference, thnaks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Small Particle-Free Field Theory. |
17 Mar 2005 02:52:28 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
A Small "Particle-Free" Field Theory.
by: Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip 200 lines of crap]
A large mind-free post by a boorish idiot.
A FORCE MAY CAUSE NECESSITY OF FIELD SUFFICIENCY.
Nice use of uppercase.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Hey Eagleson, you have revelations like vegetarians have gas. Same
botton line.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Small Particle-Free Field Theory. |
17 Mar 2005 04:08:53 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
A Small "Particle-Free" Field Theory.
by: Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip 200 lines of crap]
A large mind-free post by a boorish idiot.
A FORCE MAY CAUSE NECESSITY OF FIELD SUFFICIENCY.
Nice use of uppercase.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Hey Eagleson, you have revelations like vegetarians have gas. Same
botton line.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Well, the law stands. You come up with a real and unique
law of nature. Everybody usually uses causality to argue this
law.btw
It is easily interpretable in those terms if you were
qualified to comment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
