Science > Physics > gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"tony fleming" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2005 04:56:49 AM |
| Object: |
gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
take 2 (amended title)
I thought that this work deserves it own thread, and might clutter up
the discussion happening on the universal expansion. so we'll shift any
discussion of gravity as seen by SFT to here. You will see that this
work is 'out there' and is probably unable to be appreciated by
many, but I do wish to open up discussion on it because it DOES fit in
with SFT which as I have been at pains to explain goes 'beyond
uncertainty' by the use of centre-of-motion E- and H-fields. This
work will in time be written up as a report but at this stage there is
much fleshing out to be done; so I do hope that the
'main-streamers' in our midst will be patient, and forbearing, and
fire your shots without too much hostility; I need your help to make
this a worthwhile report.
I have referred at times to the hydrogen paper found at the
www.unifiedphysics.com website that some of you have been visiting:
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_0...
By way of introduction, we have been discussing the massive and the
massless photon. QFT with its HUP says of course that the photon is
massless (by definition even) otherwise we 'break gauge symmetry' thus
spoiling the mathematical basis (mmmm not a really good premise for an
assumption, but one which does at least QFT to barge right on through
the problematic issue where the photon is massive. On the otherhand
the mathematics within SFT balances both photons and electrons, and
photons and protons within the hydrogen atom, and as such reveals a
fracticality within the maths, that appears to be a reflection of the
actual physics (a wide and varied range of experimental evidence
supports the notions of photonic spectroscopy, or photonic chemistry).
There is plainly visible within the universe a layered structure of
matter that reflects a structure within the photon as indicated
theoretically by self-field theory (SFT). Four levels of gravitation
can be discerned; solar systems, galaxies, super clusters, and the
universe. Beyond that level there may be multiverses indicating
another 'cycle' of fields. The four levels of universal
gravitational strength are compliant with the four orthogonal
directions of rotation associated with maxwell-lorentz self-field
theory (see the orthogonality of the time derivatives of the E-field as
shown in Fig. 5 of) Each layer of gravitation suggests a different way
in which the Maxwell-lorentz self-field equations are being satisfied.
The observed cyclotron motion at each level follows the rotational axis
of the theory. Hence if we start with the atom, the plane of rotation
of this cyclotron motion is orthogonal to the orbital motion; at the
solar system this cyclotron effect is shifted by 90 degrees to the
atom, and the spin of the planets can be added to the orbital rotation
(e.g. relativistic effect due to the perihelion of mercury); this shift
continues as the series continues, so we find that the galactic
cyclotron effect is shifted 180 degrees from the atom, and 90 degrees
from the solar system. Now, no relativistic effect is seen.
Continuing, at the super-cluster level, we may again see a relativistic
effect but this time so as to detract from the orbital motion.
We also see a series of 'centres', like nuclei, larger collations
of matter that balance the smaller satellites within a system. These
are not the centres of motion of these systems. The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
In the ordinary application of SFT, the problem is set up as an
eigenvalue problem to solve for the particle motions. As the quanta of
photon energies are changed, each motion changes to satisfy the new
particle-eigensolutions (as used in the hydrogen paper). Here, this
is another form of eigenvalue problem in which the fields play the
major role and the particles only a secondary role. Each field is
represented in SFT by spirals, and each layer of the
'field-eigensolution' has an integer spiral added to it; these
field-eigensolutions are accompanied by changes to the energy density
of the self-field equations and different fields (all versions of
Eq.1).
This theoretical and (partially) observed "differentiation" of the
photon, goes both ways; as we get bigger and bigger, we get derivative
functions of the fields; and as we go smaller and small we get
"integration" of the fields; structures, more tightly packed into
smaller and small regions where the energy densities get higher and
higher.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 05:19:36 AM |
|
|
What's the SFT? Is it another AHA (Another Hated Acronym???????)
- Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 07:06:38 AM |
|
|
sorry defined it half way down: self-field theory (SFT) based on
maxwell-lorentz equations and solved for self-fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 02:17:08 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
take 2 (amended title)
I thought that this work deserves it own thread, and might clutter up
the discussion happening on the universal expansion. so we'll shift any
discussion of gravity as seen by SFT to here. You will see that this
work is 'out there' and is probably unable to be appreciated by
many, but I do wish to open up discussion on it because it DOES fit in
with SFT which as I have been at pains to explain goes 'beyond
uncertainty' by the use of centre-of-motion E- and H-fields. This
work will in time be written up as a report but at this stage there is
much fleshing out to be done; so I do hope that the
'main-streamers' in our midst will be patient, and forbearing, and
fire your shots without too much hostility; I need your help to make
this a worthwhile report.
I have referred at times to the hydrogen paper found at the
www.unifiedphysics.com website that some of you have been visiting:
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_0...
By way of introduction, we have been discussing the massive and the
massless photon. QFT with its HUP says of course that the photon is
massless (by definition even) otherwise we 'break gauge symmetry' thus
spoiling the mathematical basis (mmmm not a really good premise for an
assumption, but one which does at least QFT to barge right on through
the problematic issue where the photon is massive. On the otherhand
the mathematics within SFT balances both photons and electrons, and
photons and protons within the hydrogen atom, and as such reveals a
fracticality within the maths, that appears to be a reflection of the
actual physics (a wide and varied range of experimental evidence
supports the notions of photonic spectroscopy, or photonic chemistry).
There is plainly visible within the universe a layered structure of
matter that reflects a structure within the photon as indicated
theoretically by self-field theory (SFT). Four levels of gravitation
can be discerned; solar systems, galaxies, super clusters, and the
universe. Beyond that level there may be multiverses indicating
another 'cycle' of fields. The four levels of universal
gravitational strength are compliant with the four orthogonal
directions of rotation associated with maxwell-lorentz self-field
theory (see the orthogonality of the time derivatives of the E-field as
shown in Fig. 5 of) Each layer of gravitation suggests a different way
in which the Maxwell-lorentz self-field equations are being satisfied.
The observed cyclotron motion at each level follows the rotational axis
of the theory. Hence if we start with the atom, the plane of rotation
of this cyclotron motion is orthogonal to the orbital motion; at the
solar system this cyclotron effect is shifted by 90 degrees to the
atom, and the spin of the planets can be added to the orbital rotation
(e.g. relativistic effect due to the perihelion of mercury); this shift
continues as the series continues, so we find that the galactic
cyclotron effect is shifted 180 degrees from the atom, and 90 degrees
from the solar system. Now, no relativistic effect is seen.
Continuing, at the super-cluster level, we may again see a relativistic
effect but this time so as to detract from the orbital motion.
We also see a series of 'centres', like nuclei, larger collations
of matter that balance the smaller satellites within a system. These
are not the centres of motion of these systems. The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
In the ordinary application of SFT, the problem is set up as an
eigenvalue problem to solve for the particle motions. As the quanta of
photon energies are changed, each motion changes to satisfy the new
particle-eigensolutions (as used in the hydrogen paper). Here, this
is another form of eigenvalue problem in which the fields play the
major role and the particles only a secondary role. Each field is
represented in SFT by spirals, and each layer of the
'field-eigensolution' has an integer spiral added to it; these
field-eigensolutions are accompanied by changes to the energy density
of the self-field equations and different fields (all versions of
Eq.1).
This theoretical and (partially) observed "differentiation" of the
photon, goes both ways; as we get bigger and bigger, we get derivative
functions of the fields; and as we go smaller and small we get
"integration" of the fields; structures, more tightly packed into
smaller and small regions where the energy densities get higher and
higher.
Newton was able to put 3 laws of motion into
a paragraph. How many books will SFT require?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 03:20:15 AM |
|
|
I love ewes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 04:26:02 AM |
|
|
actually we can add a fourth law to newton's three:
As stated previously, the E- and H-fields are calculated
unconventionally in terms of two coupled coordinate systems (Fig. 3).
They are measured via centres-of-motion, vacant points in space. In
conventional EM theory fields are calculated entirely between charge
points. Jackson considers current loops and the Biot-Savart law in
terms of Newton's third law relating to the requirement that if a
force acts between two objects then the force acts through a straight
line joining the two objects, a line joining both charge-points [10].
Newton's laws can be paraphrased as follows:
LAW I. A particle remains at rest or continues to move in a straight
line with a uniform velocity if there is no unbalanced force acting on
it.
LAW II. The acceleration of a particle is proportional to the
resulting force acting on it and is in the direction of this force.
LAW III. The forces of action and reaction between contacting bodies
are equal in magnitude, opposite in direction, and are collinear.
Why then do the forces appear to be no longer point-to-point? Because
the electron and the proton are in motion and are not in physical
contact with each other, photons act as the field intermediary of the
forces between the two. In reality the forces still act in a collinear
fashion but there are two orthogonal motions to be considered. Thus we
can suggest a fourth law concerned with dynamic equilibrium:
LAW IV. Where non-contacting bodies are in dynamic equilibrium with
each other, the electric and magnetic forces are equal in magnitude,
opposite in direction, and are collinear relative to their orbital and
cyclotron frames of reference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 02:57:24 AM |
|
|
The fourth law of 'Newton' could be the flowing one
and it is very short as Tucker whanted and it is an expansion to the
first law:
There is a basic particle (undiscovered yet)
*that moves *naturally* in a closed circle*!
i called it
The Circlon
one has to deeply understand what does it means 'moves naturally is a
revolutionary postulate
but IMHO a good and promising one (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 10:11:44 AM |
|
|
mon ami, you are lauded by kyle!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 11:02:00 AM |
|
|
lauded or not lauded
i know nothing about Kyle
my proposal is at least from 1993 old
and nothing of it is by Kyle all orriginal.
(and a revolutionary postulate of take it
or leave it
-----------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 07:24:43 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
[snip]
a wide and varied range of experimental evidence
supports the notions of photonic spectroscopy, or photonic chemistry
please list this evidence
[snip]
The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
what is this all about? just stick with the atom and the solar system
when explaining.
Each field is
represented in SFT by spirals, and each layer of the
'field-eigensolution' has an integer spiral added to it;
what does adding an integer spiral to the layer of the field
eigensolution mean? Is it that as you list the eigensolutions (of the H
atom for example) in increasing energy, that there is one extra loop of
spiral per orbit? So that a 2s orbit is the same as a 1s orbit, except
with an extra loop in the spiral? If so then you have *no hope* of
reproducing the measurements I linked.
[snip]
This theoretical and (partially) observed "differentiation" of the
photon,
what partial observation?
I had another look at your orbit of Figure 6 in your paper:
"Fig. 6 Coupled spinor solution; the motion spinors rotating in ro
=E2=88=92=CF=86o and rc-=CE=B8c planes where and ro=3D4rc and =CF=89o=3D16w=
c=2E Such a plot
provides comparison with the probability densities of quantum theory"
does this mean that this is a very high order "orbital", something like
the 16f (or whatever)? In other words, *absolutely nothing* like the
equivalent Schroedinger orbital?
And is a 1s orbital just a circle?
If I am remotely right wrt what you are saying, I don't think you have
any hope whatsoever of reproducing *any* of the measurements I linked
previously.
br
p=2Es. are you still active on the other thread of SFT and entanglement?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 09:36:22 AM |
|
|
dr photon (brendan) wrote
a wide and varied range of experimental evidence
supports the notions of photonic spectroscopy, or photonic chemistry
please list this evidence
ok, it was the subject of a presentation at a BEMS meeting in
Washington June 2004;
http://www.cymatherapy.com/A%20predicted%20photon%20chemistry-hand%20out.pdf
Cymatics is involved in acoustic therapy, which is another fascinating
part of the photon chemistry; the phonon can be related to the photon
(phonon+photon ->gluon).
to be brief, the evidence of a photon spectroscopy includes:
(1) layering of the ionosphere: there appears to be a differing
'chemical' structure in the ionosphere for instance regions where
clouds occur and where they don't; the photons reaching from earth from
the sun are becoming more energetic as they travel towards earth; this
work is related to the well-known Schumann resonances where the
structure of the ionospheric shells which occur only on the daylight
side of earth can be modelled as a series of large microwave cavities.
The various layers can be viewed as fundamentally different photon
states; although the physics is continuous there are =E2=80=98transition
points=E2=80=99 where the field structure (the photon state) is fundamental=
ly
altered (just like a 1s going to a 2s state, say) to a different
field-eigensolution.
(2) snowflake structures: different hydration structures are perhaps
caused by various field arrangements around dust particles, in other
words although H2O is the same, the variable is the FIELD around the
hydration bond; again an indication of differing photon states
(3) the structure of hydration layers found generally in biophysics; as
we get older, our body's proteins and other macromolecules get
"stiffer" due to the energy levels around them dropping (the body=E2=80=99s
=E2=80=9Clines of communication=E2=80=9D degrade in a similar way), and the=
field
structure becomes more "crystalline", stiffer; this effect occurs
outside and inside our cells (tensegrity for instance is a fibrous
structure within and without cells) and these cells lose their ability
to reproduce and become more prone to apoptosis;
(4) a wide role of the "biophoton" in a range in biochemical processes
involving DNA bases; for instance, it is suspected that the variable in
the transcription of the DNA in accessing the long-term memory is the
energy or field of the various ions including ca2+ that can be sent
from neurone to neurone. Depending on the energy or field state of the
ca2+, differing EM signals can be transmitted to a range of particular
DNA bases.
The evidence for the photon chemistry (as distinct from its
spectroscopy) is really the SFT mathematics; the =E2=80=9Cordinary photon=
=E2=80=9D
which consists of two subphotonic particles of equal mass and charge (a
charge way, way below the elementary charge q on the proton say) can be
treated using SFT and it yields the field-eigensolutions we have been
discussing above. This ordinary photon is like a =E2=80=9Ctiny atom=E2=80=
=9D as it
has a positive subphotonic particle and a negative subphotonic particle
; this is the lowest state photon having two subphotonic particles
(two-particle); there are others two-particles which seem to bear
resemblance to the W+, and W- bosons, and these consist of two =E2=80=93ve
and two +ve subphotonic particles,;the Z0 boson bears resemblance to
the four-particle +,-,+,-
But, like atomic compounds of varying nucleon number and electrons
arranged in their various shells (the period table of elements etc),
the photon can ALSO exist as three-particles of various arrangements of
subphotonic charge (gluons). HIGHER order particles four- and
five-particles, etc seem to be involved in the range of black and white
holes seen within the universe (see below).
As we go from lower to higher order photonic =E2=80=9Ccompounds=E2=80=9D, t=
hey
provide for
more degrees of motion to the PARTICLES (such as muons, and quarks) for
which they are the FIELDS.
By modifying the number of fields we have for a particular photonic
compound, we get different versions of the Maxwell-Lorentz equations;
for instance we add an extra field for the gluons, and these then cause
a THREE-WAY interaction between quarks; so we need THREE quarks, not
two, for an equilibrium.
The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
what is this all about? just stick with the atom and the solar system
when explaining.
Well, the interesting thing I=E2=80=99m trying to explain is an alternating
series that goes from atom, to solar system, to galaxy, to
super-cluster, to universe, (to multiverse??) where we see a change of
sign -,+,-,+, like a mathematical series, and this is evidence of a
relationship across the structure of the universe, so this is a big
point I=E2=80=99m trying to make.
Each field is
represented in SFT by spirals, and each layer of the
'field-eigensolution' has an integer spiral added to it;
what does adding an integer spiral to the layer of the field
eigensolution mean? Is it that as you list the eigensolutions (of the H
atom for example) in increasing energy, that there is one extra loop of
spiral per orbit?
Yes and no (sorry for that answer, let me try to explain); what the
maths is saying is that there are DIFFERENT FORMS of eigenvalue
solution; we have to remember this the equations (maxwell-lorentz) are
PARTICLE/FIELD equations. So we find that as well as the ATOM having
eigensolutions (1s and 2s say), the FIELD can have another range of
eigensolutions (in fact TWO fundamentally different solutions for the
fields!! In the first field-eigensolution, we get the photon
spectroscopy we have discussed; and in the second, we get the photonic
compounds. The various compounds each need different numbers of
(half-integer) spirals
So that a 2s orbit is the same as a 1s orbit, except
with an extra loop in the spiral?
No its NOT, this is an example akin to the photon SPECTROSCOPY
If so then you have *no hope* of
reproducing the measurements I linked.
[snip]
Well, we CAN get orbitals from the output same as QFT, but it is
different, because SFT doesn=E2=80=99t have HUP in it, otherwise if we
inserted centre-of-motion fields inside QFT, then QFT would give you
the actual orbital and cyclotron motions like SFT.
This theoretical and (partially) observed "differentiation" of the
photon,
what partial observation?
I=E2=80=99ll expand later, briefly, I=E2=80=99m not sure what is happening =
at the
super-cluster level yet, although what is happening at the solar system
and galaxy level looks pretty good.
I had another look at your orbit of Figure 6 in your paper:
"Fig. 6 Coupled spinor solution; the motion spinors rotating in ro
=E2=88=92=CF=86o and rc-=CE=B8c planes where and ro=3D4rc and =CF=89o=3D16w=
c=2E Such a plot
provides comparison with the probability densities of quantum theory"
does this mean that this is a very high order "orbital", something like
the 16f (or whatever)? In other words, *absolutely nothing* like the
equivalent Schroedinger orbital?
As I say you CAN extract probabilities from the motions by smearing all
the space-time points together, but you have to be aware that there is
no HUP here, so schroedinger is another method totally. Those simple
wave functions of QM go out to infinity so this is a big difference for
a start!! Self-field theory only finds solutions INSIDE the atom, there
is no far-field.
And is a 1s orbital just a circle?
NO, it=E2=80=99s a double rotation comprising both an orbital rotation (a
circle in the simplest case), and a superimposed cyclotron motion,
(also a circle in the simplest case) but since they are occurring
together, the motion is quite complex in the same way a cycloid is
quite subtle and interesting, although it has a simple mathematical
equation
If I am remotely right wrt what you are saying, I don't think you have
any hope whatsoever of reproducing *any* of the measurements I linked
previously.
For the level of the code at present, I would say you=E2=80=99re right!! I
wish I could have 100 man-years of programmers!! But I would like to
take the hydrogen atom work to the level of producing probability
densities, to show people the differences you would get; you=E2=80=99d still
get 1s shapes, etc, but there=E2=80=99d be some interesting differences wor=
th
showing people ; but a very good way to demonstrate the maths (better
than I have shown at present). I foresee a report comparing QM and SFT
sometime in the not too distant future. Maybe this has to be done
before anything else!!??
br
p=2Es. are you still active on the other thread of SFT and entanglement?
yes when i get a moment or three!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 10:27:00 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
[snip 4 extraordinarily tenuous "evidences"]
I hope you don't mind if I say I'm not convinced!
The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
what is this all about? just stick with the atom and the solar system
when explaining.
Well, the interesting thing I'm trying to explain is an alternating
series that goes from atom, to solar system, to galaxy, to
super-cluster, to universe, (to multiverse??) where we see a change of
sign -,+,-,+, like a mathematical series, and this is evidence of a
relationship across the structure of the universe, so this is a big
point I'm trying to make.
still don't get it. What change of sign?
So that a 2s orbit is the same as a 1s orbit, except
with an extra loop in the spiral?
No its NOT, this is an example akin to the photon SPECTROSCOPY
still don't get it. So what is a 2s orbital like? And what is a 2p
orbital like?
If I am remotely right wrt what you are saying, I don't think you have
any hope whatsoever of reproducing *any* of the measurements I linked
previously.
For the level of the code at present, I would say you're right!! I
wish I could have 100 man-years of programmers!! But I would like to
take the hydrogen atom work to the level of producing probability
densities, to show people the differences you would get; you'd still
get 1s shapes, etc, but there'd be some interesting differences worth
showing people ; but a very good way to demonstrate the maths (better
than I have shown at present). I foresee a report comparing QM and SFT
sometime in the not too distant future. Maybe this has to be done
before anything else!!??
Please do compare QM and SFT, but let's keep it *very* simple:
I'll spell out in another way my complaint of the 2p zeroes-
Take a spiral orbit corresponding to 2p (aside: do you have a
difference between 2s and 2p in your model?). Introduce some random
fuzz to the path - you will get a fuzzy tube, like an inflated bicycle
tyre. Orent this around the nucleus in random directions, and average -
you will get a fuzzy shell. In other words, no zero plane.
How on Earth then is it even *possible* to get something like:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/2p/index.html
How on Earth is it possible when combining your orbits to get
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/MOs/N2/2pz2pz-sigma/index.html
which has even been measured???
Here is an example of the 7f orbitals (if this compares to your 16f(?)
orbital):
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/7f/index.html
Never mind 100 years, going by your orbits so far it seems impossible
even in principle.
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 11:12:58 AM |
|
|
Dr Photon wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
[snip 4 extraordinarily tenuous "evidences"]
think about it some more
I hope you don't mind if I say I'm not convinced!
ok, i'm just pleased your considering it at this stage!!
The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
what is this all about? just stick with the atom and the solar system
when explaining.
Well, the interesting thing I'm trying to explain is an alternating
series that goes from atom, to solar system, to galaxy, to
super-cluster, to universe, (to multiverse??) where we see a change of
sign -,+,-,+, like a mathematical series, and this is evidence of a
relationship across the structure of the universe, so this is a big
point I'm trying to make.
still don't get it. What change of sign?
the atom is a negative potential well, and the sun is a positive
potential hill. do you know what an alternating series is in maths?
So that a 2s orbit is the same as a 1s orbit, except
with an extra loop in the spiral?
No its NOT, this is an example akin to the photon SPECTROSCOPY
still don't get it. So what is a 2s orbital like? And what is a 2p
orbital like?
its an analogy, i'm not sure if for the photon there will be any non-s
shells because the electron and the proton have differing masses,
whereas there appears to be a mass symmetry in the photon that yields a
continuous physics rather than a quantum physics
If I am remotely right wrt what you are saying, I don't think you have
any hope whatsoever of reproducing *any* of the measurements I linked
previously.
For the level of the code at present, I would say you're right!! I
wish I could have 100 man-years of programmers!! But I would like to
take the hydrogen atom work to the level of producing probability
densities, to show people the differences you would get; you'd still
get 1s shapes, etc, but there'd be some interesting differences worth
showing people ; but a very good way to demonstrate the maths (better
than I have shown at present). I foresee a report comparing QM and SFT
sometime in the not too distant future. Maybe this has to be done
before anything else!!??
Please do compare QM and SFT, but let's keep it *very* simple:
I'll spell out in another way my complaint of the 2p zeroes-
Take a spiral orbit corresponding to 2p (aside: do you have a
difference between 2s and 2p in your model?). Introduce some random
fuzz to the path - you will get a fuzzy tube, like an inflated bicycle
tyre. Orent this around the nucleus in random directions, and average -
you will get a fuzzy shell. In other words, no zero plane.
How on Earth then is it even *possible* to get something like:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/2p/index.html
How on Earth is it possible when combining your orbits to get
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/MOs/N2/2pz2pz-sigma/index.html
which has even been measured???
Here is an example of the 7f orbitals (if this compares to your 16f(?)
orbital):
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/7f/index.html
Never mind 100 years, going by your orbits so far it seems impossible
even in principle.
well they do get very complex very quickly; i think you'd find they DO
agree pretty much. if you try to imagine these motions, they do some
very strange things;
however, you have every right to be cynical until the plots are done;
whenever that will be!!
i 'll try to think about these shells some more and get back to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 11:13:03 AM |
|
|
Dr Photon wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
[snip 4 extraordinarily tenuous "evidences"]
think about it some more
I hope you don't mind if I say I'm not convinced!
ok, i'm just pleased your considering it at this stage!!
The series is
alternating with a 'black hole' inside the atom (negative total
energy), then a white hole (positive total energy) at the solar system
level, another black hole at the centre of each galaxy, and a white
hole at the centre of each super-cluster.
what is this all about? just stick with the atom and the solar system
when explaining.
Well, the interesting thing I'm trying to explain is an alternating
series that goes from atom, to solar system, to galaxy, to
super-cluster, to universe, (to multiverse??) where we see a change of
sign -,+,-,+, like a mathematical series, and this is evidence of a
relationship across the structure of the universe, so this is a big
point I'm trying to make.
still don't get it. What change of sign?
the atom is a negative potential well, and the sun is a positive
potential hill. do you know what an alternating series is in maths?
So that a 2s orbit is the same as a 1s orbit, except
with an extra loop in the spiral?
No its NOT, this is an example akin to the photon SPECTROSCOPY
still don't get it. So what is a 2s orbital like? And what is a 2p
orbital like?
its an analogy, i'm not sure if for the photon there will be any non-s
shells because the electron and the proton have differing masses,
whereas there appears to be a mass symmetry in the photon that yields a
continuous physics rather than a quantum physics
If I am remotely right wrt what you are saying, I don't think you have
any hope whatsoever of reproducing *any* of the measurements I linked
previously.
For the level of the code at present, I would say you're right!! I
wish I could have 100 man-years of programmers!! But I would like to
take the hydrogen atom work to the level of producing probability
densities, to show people the differences you would get; you'd still
get 1s shapes, etc, but there'd be some interesting differences worth
showing people ; but a very good way to demonstrate the maths (better
than I have shown at present). I foresee a report comparing QM and SFT
sometime in the not too distant future. Maybe this has to be done
before anything else!!??
Please do compare QM and SFT, but let's keep it *very* simple:
I'll spell out in another way my complaint of the 2p zeroes-
Take a spiral orbit corresponding to 2p (aside: do you have a
difference between 2s and 2p in your model?). Introduce some random
fuzz to the path - you will get a fuzzy tube, like an inflated bicycle
tyre. Orent this around the nucleus in random directions, and average -
you will get a fuzzy shell. In other words, no zero plane.
How on Earth then is it even *possible* to get something like:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/2p/index.html
How on Earth is it possible when combining your orbits to get
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/MOs/N2/2pz2pz-sigma/index.html
which has even been measured???
Here is an example of the 7f orbitals (if this compares to your 16f(?)
orbital):
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/7f/index.html
Never mind 100 years, going by your orbits so far it seems impossible
even in principle.
well they do get very complex very quickly; i think you'd find they DO
agree pretty much. if you try to imagine these motions, they do some
very strange things;
however, you have every right to be cynical until the plots are done;
whenever that will be!!
i 'll try to think about these shells some more and get back to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 02:08:55 AM |
|
|
ok, lets see if i can describe your shells via SFT:
first we have the motion of ONE electron inside the hydrogen atom.
this is a double motion, both are periodic, and both orthogonal to the
plane of each other (take a normal to a circle to define the directions
of each as is the convention). i call these individual rotations
"spinors" (i know this terminology is already used within QFT, but i
use the term spinor as a physical motion, not as a way to decompose
tensors as per the dirac spinors etc, ok to here? The shell associated
with this motion is the "s" (spherical) orbital, and evenly
distributed probability of finding the electron in any direction, with
a variable distribution in the radial direction. Note that the radial
probability function does NOT extend out to infinity like QFT. J.E.
House, "fundamentals of quantum mechanics" academic press, 1998 has
a QM plot for this radial probability function. Comparing this to an
SFT probability density we would find the radial plot would be zero at
a distance somewhere not too far beyond 2*a_0, where a_0 is the bohr
radius. Because the rotations are allowed to be perturbed away from
the simple circle without becoming unstable, this distance is greater
than 2*a_0, but it is still not infinity as with House's plot 2.1.
so lets go to a two-electron shell;
the only way to have this second electron involved in the dynamic
equilibrium satisfied by the maxwell-lorentz is to have it it placed
OPPOSITE in phase to the motion of the first, i.e. 180 degrees shifted
in phase; now, we get the electron balanced by its opposite motion, as
well as being balanced (electromagnetically) by the quarks. So this
gives a probability density function comparable with the "p"
orbitals; so there will be three orthogonal orbitals shaped like the
well-known p dumbbells. Notice at this point, that this case
corresponds to the pauli exclusion principle. Again, note that the
prob. density function does NOT extend to infinity.
I think you'll find that we can extend this process to give you a
comparison to your "f" shells.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 04:22:34 AM |
|
|
remember the orbital don't have to be centred at the middle of the
structure, so the two "p" orbitals can be offset to the centre-of-mass;
imagine one electron with a centre of orbital motion at -a on the
x-axis, and the other electron with its centre of orbital motion at +a
on the x-axis; now these two have cyclotron motions to be added; so i
think this now shows you the p_x orbital
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 07:25:06 AM |
|
|
i think you should now be seeing how the QM wave functions, and
probability densities, and go out to infinity (in radial distance). but
the SFT fields don't, and therefore neither do the SFT probability
densities; so this demonstrates what i've been saying previously about
the functional field form within QFT being coulomb-like (because it's
ubiquitous, covering all solid angles, out to infinity, and the
non-infinite field form (the photon streams) of SFT which is NOT
ubiquitous, even within the atom.
this is the same within the fields in the univers btw.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
03 Sep 2005 07:51:54 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
i think you should now be seeing how the QM wave functions, and
probability densities, and go out to infinity (in radial distance). but
the SFT fields don't, and therefore neither do the SFT probability
densities; so this demonstrates what i've been saying previously about
the functional field form within QFT being coulomb-like (because it's
ubiquitous, covering all solid angles, out to infinity, and the
non-infinite field form (the photon streams) of SFT which is NOT
ubiquitous, even within the atom.
this is the same within the fields in the univers btw.
Hi Tony,
I've been spending countless hours in amazon searching for
a good basic book on quantum field theory and I'm deciding
between Shaw QFT and Grenier Field Quantization.
The latter has the path intergral approach in addition
to canonical quantization while the former has only the
latter (but the former has an example of how QED is
accurate down to 0.00000000001 value). Can you enumerate all
the books on QFT you have read. Maybe I can match the set you
own.
I want to understand what's going on in your head and look
through your eyes and see what in blazes is Self field
theory. What is the exact title of the Barut book again
where you got the initial idea from.
Kyle
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 02:14:44 AM |
|
|
kyle good question, thank you; i've got a growing stack of books
related to quantum field theory; YOU can probably give ME a good
introductory modern text into QFT; I have a little book on QM that I
refer to for insight into the simpler techniques, J.E. House,
"Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics" academic press, 1998. This book is
written for non-specialists so it has to be concise.
i'm not sure i can list all the relevant books in my library that
relate to either QM or QFT; I tend to read books that have some other
agenda, such as the standard model, nuclear physics, physical
chemistry, or historical texts that say something about the context in
which QFT was evolving. For those wanting some references, I've
pasted them below. For my self-field theory hydrogen paper a pdf of the
paper can be found at www.unifiedphysics.com.
I got the idea of self-field theory during my Ph. D. via a line of
inquiry about a "zero-radiation antenna"; this topic of interest
originated from von hippell's derivation of the far-field radiation
energy density from a herzian dipole. It was through studying hertz'
original work that I realised that no magnetic effect was being
considered. And it was then that I found from my visits to the library
that many QM and QFT books didn't even have the name magnetic field
in their index.
Whittaker's history volumes are wonderful and transport you back in
time to the early decades of the 20th century when everything was up
for grabs. Einstein fortunately had his five papers published in
annalen der physic in 1905, and who do you think the editor was at that
time? Max Planck!! Serendipity at work eh?
Actually if I recommend any text to you it is with the proviso that
"truth is where you find it". For instance you are probably aware
from you internet search that there are many excellent QFT sites across
the web.
so let me know if you find a good introductory QFT book in your
travels, eh? any other questions, fire away!!, see a head and kick it!!
[1] E. Whittaker, A history of the theories of aether and electricity,
2, (Harper & Brother, New York, NY, 1960)
[2] E.U. Condon and H. Odabasi, Atomic structure, (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1980)
[3] J.C. Maxwell, Phil. Trans. Clv, 459 (1864).
[4] J.D. North, The measure of the universe, (Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1960)
[5] W. Heitler, The quantum theory of radiation, (Dover, New York, NY,
1984)
[6] W. Heisenberg , Introduction to the unified field theory of
elementary particles, (Interscience, New York, NY,1966)
[7] W.N. Cottingham and D.A. Greenwood, An introduction to the standard
model of particle physics, (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge,1998)
[8] W.A. Hofer, "Masses and fields in microdynamics: a possible
foundation for dynamic gravity" in Frontiers of Fundamental Physics
IV, eds. B.G. Sidharth and M.V. Altaisky, (Kluwer Academic /Plenum, New
York, NY, 2001)
[9] W.A. Hofer, Physica A256, 178 (1998)
[10] J.D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, (John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY, 1999)
[11] A.H.J. Fleming, "Can a cross-dipole sustain a standing wave?", in
draft, 2004.
[12] A.H.J. Fleming and E.B. Colorio, "Prediction of a photonic
chemistry", (26th annual meeting of BEMS, Washington, June 20-24,
2004a)
[13] A.H.J. Fleming and E.B. Colorio, "The spectroscopy of the EM
field", (3rd International Workshop on Biological effects of EMFs,
Kos, 4-8 October 2004b
[14] R.F. Harrington, Time harmonic electromagnetic fields,
(Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, NY, 1961)
[15] K.K. Mei, IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagat., AP-22, 760 (1974)
[16] A.H.J. Fleming, "A finite element method for composite
scatterers", in Finite element and finite difference methods in
electromagnetic scattering, ed. M.A. Morgan, Progress in
electromagnetics research, PIER-2, (Elsevier, New York, NY, 1988)
[17] A. Von Hippel, Dielectrics and waves, (John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 1962)
[18] B.V. Vasil'ev and V.L. Lyuboshits, Physics-Uspekhi, 37(4), 345,
(1994)
[19] G.P. Thomson, Proc. R. Soc., A, 119, 651 (1928).
[20] K.S. Krane, Introductory nuclear physics (John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 1988)
[21] W. Heisenberg, The physical principles of the quantum theory,
(Dover, New York, NY, 1949)
[22] W.H. Cropper, Great Physicists, (Oxford University Press, N.Y,
N.Y.2001)
[23] A.O. Barut, Electrodynamics and classical theory of fields and
particles (Dover, New York, NY, 1980)
[24] S. Hawking, A brief history of time, (Bantam, London, U.K.,1988)
[25] R. Lakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. (80), 9, 1826 (1998)
[26] G. N. Ling, Life at the cell and below-cell level, (Pacific Press,
Melville, NY, 2001)
[27] L. J. Gagliardi, "Electrostatic force in prometaphase,
metaphase, and anaphase-A chromosome motions", Endogeneous Physical
Fields in Biology, (URSI International Symposium July 1-3, Prague,
Czech Republic, 2002)
[28] A, H. J. Fleming, "Towards computational methods for studying
cellular effects due to EM fields", Fifteenth Annual Review of
Progress in Applied Computational Electromagnetics, (ACES Symposium
March 15-19, Monterey, CA, 1999).
[29] F.A. Popp, About the coherence of biophotons, Microscopic Quantum
Coherence, Proceedings of an International Conference, (World
Scientific, River Edge, NJ,1999)
[30] B.F. Schutz, Geometrical methods of mathematical physics,
(Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge,1980)
[31] B. Jancewicz, Multivectors and Clifford algebra in
electrodynamics, (World Scientific Publishing, Singapore,1988)
[House 1998]
[32] J. Gibbon, Science a history 1543-2001, (Penguin, London, 2002)
[33]. Einstein, "Relativity, the special and general theory", in
Albert Einstein in his own words, (Portland House, New York, NY, 2000)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 07:28:36 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
kyle good question, thank you; i've got a growing stack of books
related to quantum field theory; YOU can probably give ME a good
introductory modern text into QFT; I have a little book on QM that I
refer to for insight into the simpler techniques, J.E. House,
"Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics" academic press, 1998. This book is
written for non-specialists so it has to be concise.
i'm not sure i can list all the relevant books in my library that
relate to either QM or QFT; I tend to read books that have some other
agenda, such as the standard model, nuclear physics, physical
chemistry, or historical texts that say something about the context in
which QFT was evolving. For those wanting some references, I've
pasted them below. For my self-field theory hydrogen paper a pdf of the
paper can be found at www.unifiedphysics.com.
I got the idea of self-field theory during my Ph. D. via a line of
inquiry about a "zero-radiation antenna"; this topic of interest
originated from von hippell's derivation of the far-field radiation
energy density from a herzian dipole. It was through studying hertz'
original work that I realised that no magnetic effect was being
considered. And it was then that I found from my visits to the library
that many QM and QFT books didn't even have the name magnetic field
in their index.
Whittaker's history volumes are wonderful and transport you back in
time to the early decades of the 20th century when everything was up
for grabs. Einstein fortunately had his five papers published in
annalen der physic in 1905, and who do you think the editor was at that
time? Max Planck!! Serendipity at work eh?
Actually if I recommend any text to you it is with the proviso that
"truth is where you find it". For instance you are probably aware
from you internet search that there are many excellent QFT sites across
the web.
so let me know if you find a good introductory QFT book in your
travels, eh? any other questions, fire away!!, see a head and kick it!!
[1] E. Whittaker, A history of the theories of aether and electricity,
2, (Harper & Brother, New York, NY, 1960)
[2] E.U. Condon and H. Odabasi, Atomic structure, (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1980)
[3] J.C. Maxwell, Phil. Trans. Clv, 459 (1864).
[4] J.D. North, The measure of the universe, (Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1960)
[5] W. Heitler, The quantum theory of radiation, (Dover, New York, NY,
1984)
[6] W. Heisenberg , Introduction to the unified field theory of
elementary particles, (Interscience, New York, NY,1966)
[7] W.N. Cottingham and D.A. Greenwood, An introduction to the standard
model of particle physics, (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge,1998)
[8] W.A. Hofer, "Masses and fields in microdynamics: a possible
foundation for dynamic gravity" in Frontiers of Fundamental Physics
IV, eds. B.G. Sidharth and M.V. Altaisky, (Kluwer Academic /Plenum, New
York, NY, 2001)
[9] W.A. Hofer, Physica A256, 178 (1998)
[10] J.D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, (John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY, 1999)
[11] A.H.J. Fleming, "Can a cross-dipole sustain a standing wave?", in
draft, 2004.
[12] A.H.J. Fleming and E.B. Colorio, "Prediction of a photonic
chemistry", (26th annual meeting of BEMS, Washington, June 20-24,
2004a)
[13] A.H.J. Fleming and E.B. Colorio, "The spectroscopy of the EM
field", (3rd International Workshop on Biological effects of EMFs,
Kos, 4-8 October 2004b
[14] R.F. Harrington, Time harmonic electromagnetic fields,
(Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, NY, 1961)
[15] K.K. Mei, IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagat., AP-22, 760 (1974)
[16] A.H.J. Fleming, "A finite element method for composite
scatterers", in Finite element and finite difference methods in
electromagnetic scattering, ed. M.A. Morgan, Progress in
electromagnetics research, PIER-2, (Elsevier, New York, NY, 1988)
[17] A. Von Hippel, Dielectrics and waves, (John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 1962)
[18] B.V. Vasil'ev and V.L. Lyuboshits, Physics-Uspekhi, 37(4), 345,
(1994)
[19] G.P. Thomson, Proc. R. Soc., A, 119, 651 (1928).
[20] K.S. Krane, Introductory nuclear physics (John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 1988)
[21] W. Heisenberg, The physical principles of the quantum theory,
(Dover, New York, NY, 1949)
[22] W.H. Cropper, Great Physicists, (Oxford University Press, N.Y,
N.Y.2001)
[23] A.O. Barut, Electrodynamics and classical theory of fields and
particles (Dover, New York, NY, 1980)
[24] S. Hawking, A brief history of time, (Bantam, London, U.K.,1988)
[25] R. Lakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. (80), 9, 1826 (1998)
[26] G. N. Ling, Life at the cell and below-cell level, (Pacific Press,
Melville, NY, 2001)
[27] L. J. Gagliardi, "Electrostatic force in prometaphase,
metaphase, and anaphase-A chromosome motions", Endogeneous Physical
Fields in Biology, (URSI International Symposium July 1-3, Prague,
Czech Republic, 2002)
[28] A, H. J. Fleming, "Towards computational methods for studying
cellular effects due to EM fields", Fifteenth Annual Review of
Progress in Applied Computational Electromagnetics, (ACES Symposium
March 15-19, Monterey, CA, 1999).
[29] F.A. Popp, About the coherence of biophotons, Microscopic Quantum
Coherence, Proceedings of an International Conference, (World
Scientific, River Edge, NJ,1999)
[30] B.F. Schutz, Geometrical methods of mathematical physics,
(Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge,1980)
[31] B. Jancewicz, Multivectors and Clifford algebra in
electrodynamics, (World Scientific Publishing, Singapore,1988)
[House 1998]
[32] J. Gibbon, Science a history 1543-2001, (Penguin, London, 2002)
[33]. Einstein, "Relativity, the special and general theory", in
Albert Einstein in his own words, (Portland House, New York, NY, 2000)
I bought this book.
Try it. It focuses in gross details on canonical quantization
and path integral methods of modern field theory. I wonder
how you can debunk all of them with your self field model.
I spent over 2 hours searching for Barut book in all your
threads. I thought you had another aside from his
"Electrodynamics and classical theory of fields and particles"
which doesn't mention about his self field model which can
be found only in pdfs and other sites.
Also try this. Mandl "QFT, Rev Ed" and Ryder "QFT".
I plan to also get the latter but decided to just focus
on Greiner "Field Quantization".
I'm presently reading John Blatt's Theoretical Nuclear
Physics to try to understand the many claims of Y. Porat
who is *said* to be the expert in the nucleus or nuclear
physics.
I'd get Greiner book in 10 days so may have to rely on
web sites for field quantization details which your self
field theory tries to debunk.
I agree with you though that our present QFT is not the
whole story. I don't like their renormalization ad hoc
doctoring. There must be a deeper theory underneath all.
Also I think the quantum vacuum is just the tip of the
iceberg.
Kyle
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 10:10:36 AM |
|
|
kyle, thanks, i don't want to 'debunk' QFT except the heisenberg
uncertainty principle, which is due to the ubiquitous field form; i
like to use the terminology 'coulomb-like' to express the idea of
taking a ubiquitous function instead of a field which is more like a
'stream of particles-beads on a string;DNA-like' that moves between
particles only. i have expressed my view in this group and elsewhere
that QFT with the correct 'stream-like' fields in place and not the
present usage of what to me appear like the 'classical' fields which
cover all solid angles out to infinity, then QFT and SFT look like the
numerical techniques known as the finite difference method and finite
element method.
in terms of HUP, let me state that werner heisenberg will always have a
place in our history of the atom and science generally. he was a
brilliant mathematician and physicist but he was very personally
ambitious. he came along at a crucial point in time; there is much to
say about his role in setting up the modern world and modern science we
see today.
i think once we can convince the various physics and technological
communities of this new way of looking at the physics, we might be able
to get a book or two written on SFT too. i do strongly suggest any
student who is ballsy enough to get his supervisor to use it at present
will have to use the web or contact me directly. any worker in the
field can also talk to me directly if they wish; the more hands to the
pumps the better; this world needs better cleaner methods of energy
production and less dependence on inefficient, profligate, energy
consumption within industry, not to mention health issues. in time it
would be a good thing to establish a web site devoted to SFT, aimed at
gettiing the message through to academia for a start.
i'll take a look through greiner thanks what level is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 02:59:52 PM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
kyle, thanks, i don't want to 'debunk' QFT except the heisenberg
uncertainty principle, which is due to the ubiquitous field form; i
like to use the terminology 'coulomb-like' to express the idea of
taking a ubiquitous function instead of a field which is more like a
'stream of particles-beads on a string;DNA-like' that moves between
particles only. i have expressed my view in this group and elsewhere
that QFT with the correct 'stream-like' fields in place and not the
present usage of what to me appear like the 'classical' fields which
cover all solid angles out to infinity, then QFT and SFT look like the
numerical techniques known as the finite difference method and finite
element method.
But isn't is that HUP is based on a physical basis... that
particle and wave characterize matter. From fourier, the only
way to localize a wave package is to have extended momentum
reach. So you want to kill matter/duality itself. So what
causes the wave and particle behavior. Your beads (particles)
in a string (wave) field version may be too simple to explain
all the data. I think the real quantum field is more complicated
that what is presented in the literature.
Also you want to imply that annihilations and creations of
particles in the quantum vacuum is not reality since your
photon has internal structure or a composite. Or do you
still agree that pair production, etc. exist in the vacuum?
in terms of HUP, let me state that werner heisenberg will always have a
place in our history of the atom and science generally. he was a
brilliant mathematician and physicist but he was very personally
ambitious. he came along at a crucial point in time; there is much to
say about his role in setting up the modern world and modern science we
see today.
i think once we can convince the various physics and technological
communities of this new way of looking at the physics, we might be able
to get a book or two written on SFT too. i do strongly suggest any
student who is ballsy enough to get his supervisor to use it at present
will have to use the web or contact me directly. any worker in the
field can also talk to me directly if they wish; the more hands to the
pumps the better; this world needs better cleaner methods of energy
production and less dependence on inefficient, profligate, energy
consumption within industry, not to mention health issues. in time it
would be a good thing to establish a web site devoted to SFT, aimed at
gettiing the message through to academia for a start.
i'll take a look through greiner thanks what level is it?
check this out...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3540591796/qid=1125863768/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-7306033-1705624?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
It is supposed to be the world's most detail presentation of
canonical quantization and path integral methods of QFT. It is
undergraduate and graduate level. Someone called Hanson has
mastered every page and formula of it so if I need some
clarifications. I can just post it to him anytime.
Kyle
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
04 Sep 2005 11:31:24 PM |
|
|
But isn't is that HUP is based on a physical basis... that
particle and wave characterize matter. From fourier, the only
way to localize a wave package is to have extended momentum
reach. So you want to kill matter/duality itself. So what
causes the wave and particle behavior. Your beads (particles)
in a string (wave) field version may be too simple to explain
all the data. I think the real quantum field is more complicated
that what is presented in the literature.
HUP is based on a view of matter that doesn't understand the simple
tie-in between matter and wave; it is ALWAYS assumed that the photon is
a single particle structure. In reality, we CAN view a two-particle
photon as either wave or matter without any contortions of the brain
whatsoever. In the history of HUP, the overriding ambition of
governments became the reality of the A-bomb; so insignificant photons
didn't fit into this picture. The desire was for EXPLOSIONS, rather
than refined knowledge which a two-particle photon represents. In
other words, the world wasn't ready for this double-quick step in
thinking. We are going to have a battle to design technological
instruments to search for the inside of the photon; the A-bomb didn't
need such finesse, it only needed a critical mass of uranium 238 and
the spherical mathematics of implosion..
Also you want to imply that annihilations and creations of
particles in the quantum vacuum is not reality since your
photon has internal structure or a composite.
No, not at all, since QFT and SFT are really underneath it all very
similar, they do compliment each other (see any number of FEM and FDM
applications). I won't mention HUP's effect on the QFT fields
again, but this does cause an inaccuracy that I need to clarify. Yes,
QED DOES get the magnetron's magnetic moment to an amazing degree of
accuracy, one that SFT can't match at present using only a
single-point model of the proton (Bjoern asked what does it matter
about the proton's model? I'll come back to this in a moment). But
it CANNOT look inside the photon, and so the standard model of particle
physics, and much else, HAS to be approached from a different viewpoint
than "photon chemistry".
The accuracy of the magnetron case is I believe because this is not the
effect due to motion itself, but to an AREA of motion, and as such the
accuracy is not affected by the use of integral methods. The accuracy
is of a different numerical kind. Remember that HUP IS an accuracy of
the overall maths method which includes the functional field-form
Or do you
still agree that pair production, etc. exist in the vacuum?
Pair production in vacuum is experimentally based, so of course it
happens. I prefer the term deep-space, because this is more difficult
to emulate in the laboratory. Energy density via mu-materials and
faraday cages are needed in my opinion to get the mu's and epsilons
(permittivities and permeabilities) throughout the universe. I don't
believe in a homogeneous, isotropic universe. The beads on a string
say that there are only photon streams between planetary masses (and
matter of higher order).
According to SFT this issue of zero-point fluctuations etc is very
complicated. Basically SFT seems to support much of what QFT is
saying. The fact that SFT has FOUR gravitational levels within the
universe indicates that there are four different levels of SFT
equations using different orders of matter. What I mean here is that
in the same way we can use simple EMSFT to solve for the motions of the
atom, we can use a dipolar version of SFT (GSFT1) that has a slightly
different form of the equilibrium. Now, the planets are analogous to
the electrons in the atom, and the sun is analogous to the nucleus in
say the hydrogen atom. Now we get the planets spinning about their
polar axes instead of performing a cyclotron motion; this is a
derivative form of EMSFT. Instead of the proton, we have a sun. So
thinking in terms of the fields, the photon is again used, but the
field-eigensolution has another spiral in its form than the photons
inside the atom.
Note that with the atom, we get both a spiral field stream in the
equatorial (r, theta) plane of the atom from the electron to the
proton, and another stream of photons in the same (r, theta) plane back
to the electron. Now with the solar system, there's a stream of
photons from the sun to the earth again in the equatorial (r, theta)
plane , but now a second stream of photons from the earth back to the
sun occurs in the (theta, phi) plane. Being a differential form of the
EM field, this second stream is orthogonal to the corresponding second
stream inside the atom-now this flow is into the north-south poles of
the sun. Now, nuclear matter is involved in this flow, but it quickly
turns into photons as the energy density near the sun's and earth's
surfaces are reached. So this is the reason for the earth's and
sun's dynamos. Notice too, that this explains the advance of the
perihelion of Mercury and the perihelion effects of all planets.
As we consider higher forms of gravitation, we get higher forms of
matter, so that black holes are regions like the sun, where, matter of
higher order than the sun is sucked in and out via these spiral streams
of photons.
So this means if you think about it, that the cosmos is filled with
various stream of photonic matter, criss-crossing the so-called vacuum;
collisions arte occurring, and this is 'bubbling sea' of zero-point
fluctuations; same physics, different perspective.
check this out...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3540591796/qid=11258637...
It is supposed to be the world's most detail presentation of
canonical quantization and path integral methods of QFT. It is
undergraduate and graduate level. Someone called Hanson has
mastered every page and formula of it so if I need some
clarifications. I can just post it to him anytime.
Kyle
am doing now, will get back to you, tks,
cheers tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 12:36:58 AM |
|
|
Kyle wrote
Your beads (particles)
in a string (wave) field version may be too simple to explain
all the data. I think the real quantum field is more complicated
that what is presented in the literature.
I think you're seeing the photon as simple points on a string. look at
them as "double helix DNA" (this is good concept for the two-particle
phonon (as distinct from the photon); now if you rotate the double
helix until it aligns with the "plane of motion" you get the idea of a
two-particle photon spinning in a plane NORMAL to its direction; now
you can define an EM wave wrt to these two oppositely charged
particles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 12:37:00 AM |
|
|
Kyle wrote
Your beads (particles)
in a string (wave) field version may be too simple to explain
all the data. I think the real quantum field is more complicated
that what is presented in the literature.
I think you're seeing the photon as simple points on a string. look at
them as "double helix DNA" (this is good concept for the two-particle
phonon (as distinct from the photon); now if you rotate the double
helix until it aligns with the "plane of motion" you get the idea of a
two-particle photon spinning in a plane NORMAL to its direction; now
you can define an EM wave wrt to these two oppositely charged
particles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 02:01:22 AM |
|
|
now there might be something else that you didnt consider IE
that there might be *more than just two Pericles in that helix*
a long succession of them!!
and all of that is explained very simply by
THE CIRCLON
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 03:35:29 AM |
|
|
i am thinking of zillions of photons!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 04:04:45 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
[snip]
the only way to have this second electron involved in the dynamic
equilibrium satisfied by the maxwell-lorentz is to have it it placed
OPPOSITE in phase to the motion of the first, i.e. 180 degrees shifted
in phase; now, we get the electron balanced by its opposite motion, as
well as being balanced (electromagnetically) by the quarks. So this
gives a probability density function comparable with the "p"
orbitals; so there will be three orthogonal orbitals shaped like the
well-known p dumbbells.
sorry tony, I think we are too far apart on this at the moment.
Nice talking to you, but let us know when you have some orbitals
plotted up which are directly comparable to QM, and we can discuss them
again at that point.
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 04:12:54 AM |
|
|
well brendan at least i know what you want; and i'll get back to you
when i've got some more orbitals plotted; so thanks for your time!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
05 Sep 2005 04:26:45 AM |
|
|
btw i've worked out how to derive what are in effect the 'wave
functions' for SFT; i know you want to see the plots, but this is
getting really very exciting brendan; the SFT wave functions (the
numerical approximations, at least) are truncated at the atom's outer
motions.
i don't think this will take too long to do, not sure
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: gravitation and structure of the universe as predicted by SFT |
02 Sep 2005 11:17:44 AM |
|
|
btw that is a great website at sheffield!! thanks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
