Physics Help Forum

Physics Help Forum (http://physicshelpforum.com/physics-help-forum.php)
-   General Physics (http://physicshelpforum.com/general-physics/)
-   -   General Quantum Unity through Isoscelation of a Photon (http://physicshelpforum.com/general-physics/12415-general-quantum-unity-through-isoscelation-photon.html)

Instantonly Feb 1st 2017 10:46 PM

General Quantum Unity through Isoscelation of a Photon
 
On the thread "General Quantum Unity", I posted a set of functions I believe will unify general relativity and quantum physics and diminish, if not exclude, the uncertainty principal. I have given myself time to consider this further and still arrive at the same conclusion and will seek to illustrate how the functions were derived and how they are immediately applied.

Due to this set of functions drawing on Hawking radiation and the ER=EPR hypothesis of Professor Susskind, I have informally titled it with this referenced.

Hawking-Susskind-Knox-Vacuum Harmonic Principal

Vacuum Di-fraction Differential:

Vacuum confinement for a photon of given Hz.

hz \ c = vacuum disruption(E)
t \ E = vacuum delay (G)
g \ G = vacuum advance (H)

vacuum disruption =Vacuum (E)xposure
vacuum delay = fractal dispersion(local delay)-Down
vacuum advance = purely gravitational(global advance)-UP

Down = EM value (G)round isolation
UP = Vacuum relay medium = friction relayed as sound = Gravity = (H)orizon deflection

Unruh Manifold(H-S-K Horizontal Termination) = (H\G) = (x) up to and including information value of Baryon particle(photons absorbed as information and entangled through their H value disparity)

Sound is counter-consequential to light.

(C) 2016 Patent Pending all rights reserved.


This set of functions came about through attempting to measure a photon definitively in all it's aspects. For that I required a means to analyse the lifespan of a photon, ie; how far a photon of any particular wavelength would be travel before it would transition to another state of energy.

To rule out arbitrariness, the function defines direction of travel in a 2 dimensional manner in which there are only two directions of travel, being emission and absorption.

To achieve this it relies on observable limits of travel. Both emission and absorption occur within the physical universe we observe but only one environment almost entirely excludes emission and that is the EH of any BH.

Therefore, the function I have derived here measures the straight line measurement of photon emission between two points within a galaxy(being considerable as an environment in which photon emission is naturally achieved through the action of gravity). This measurement is then offset against distance from a CSMBH of that galaxy as 90 degrees.

Through this analysis, absorption is confined to a path in which particles encountered must be under some degree of strain applied to it by gravity for a photon to be reliably absorbed. This removes the arbitrary nature of direction of travel.

Through analysing the results of the function I have come to the conclusion that two separate states of photon can be identified. The standard photon state we are accustomed to measuring I now refer to as vacuum delayed photons. The second state describes a vacuum advanced photon with at least two definable properties that distinguishes them from standard photons. There is a third property I can illustrate but I will not address that immediately.

The first property is a state of zero degrees which limits our capacity to measure the presence of this state of photon as this condition minimises the cross section of a travelling vacuum advanced photon. The second property of this more subtle photon state is the characteristic that this VA photon does not continue in a straight line but travels to a point relative to the amplitude of the photon before returning to the emission point. This characteristic then defines either photon state as a condition of the vacuum a photon is travelling through and an indication of the total vacuum exposure of the emission point. This "boomerang photon" state appears to assume that any standard photon that is refracted or absorbed, returns a VA photon to the point of emission that returns information regarding the degree of intervening vacuum between emission and absorption.

This set of conclusions, in my belief, allows DM/DE a measurable description and provides an alternative conclusion to the universe beginning from singularity and developing with BB, the former requiring the latter to to illustrate.

What I have supplied to this OP defines the least complex aspects of the subject. Provided questions are structured to address the subject objectively and academically, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these conclusions and the greater measurement of the contained observations.

topsquark Feb 2nd 2017 08:25 AM

How do you explain how the graviton has a helicity of 2? Can you explain how you get around the non-renormalizability of a quantum GR? It appears that a quantum GR admits a tachyon (a particle that travels faster than the speed of light.) How do your ideas remove this problem? As a test of your ideas can you find the gravitational energy levels of a hydrogen atom? (Feel free to use a semi-Classical approximation if you need to.)

If you can manage to show the solution to these problems I would gladly respond to you about your ideas and how they might work. In such a case I'd support you. Until then I will treat you as someone who really doesn't know enough theory to support your claims.

-Dan

Instantonly Feb 3rd 2017 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark (Post 33964)
How do you explain how the graviton has a helicity of 2? Can you explain how you get around the non-renormalizability of a quantum GR? It appears that a quantum GR admits a tachyon (a particle that travels faster than the speed of light.) How do your ideas remove this problem? As a test of your ideas can you find the gravitational energy levels of a hydrogen atom? (Feel free to use a semi-Classical approximation if you need to.)

If you can manage to show the solution to these problems I would gladly respond to you about your ideas and how they might work. In such a case I'd support you. Until then I will treat you as someone who really doesn't know enough theory to support your claims.

-Dan

Thank you. This makes a practical set of measurements to apply the function set toward and myself something to consider.

Instantonly Feb 24th 2017 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark (Post 33964)
How do you explain how the graviton has a helicity of 2? Can you explain how you get around the non-renormalizability of a quantum GR? It appears that a quantum GR admits a tachyon (a particle that travels faster than the speed of light.) How do your ideas remove this problem? As a test of your ideas can you find the gravitational energy levels of a hydrogen atom? (Feel free to use a semi-Classical approximation if you need to.)

If you can manage to show the solution to these problems I would gladly respond to you about your ideas and how they might work. In such a case I'd support you. Until then I will treat you as someone who really doesn't know enough theory to support your claims.

-Dan

a) although I might have some ideas, without a graviton to refer to I won't address the first question

b) this analysis implies that DM is in lambda state. Not being contained, instead of conducting electrons without energy loss, DM particles accelerate without energy absorption through their interaction with the UEMF.

c) I may get to this after clarifying the basis of this derivation and any reply you might have

>

>

It is understood the separation between electro and magnetic fields is 90 degrees. I expect that it is this modality that works with SR to produce inertia tension within the vacuum. I also suspect there is another 90 degree relationship between absolute 0 and vacuum that provides a SR effect in which the 90 degrees of the electromagnetic field breaks symmetry when the 0/vacuum 90 is enforced.


I now suspect that the moon was not formed from a collision body. My conclusion here is that hyper-rotation of a massive body increases gravitation force between standard physical matter and DM. This should have produced the reverse effect of helium escaping through the steel sides of a container so that helium accumulated in the core of the rapidly rotating proto-earth, creating a spongy bubble that centrifugal force ejected.

topsquark Feb 24th 2017 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instantonly (Post 34136)
a) although I might have some ideas, without a graviton to refer to I won't address the first question

Well, that's pretty much why I asked. If you are going to be able to "replace" GR then you are going to have to have something similar to a gravitron, else you can't reproduce the information we already have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instantonly (Post 34136)
b) this analysis implies that DM is in lambda state. Not being contained, instead of conducting electrons without energy loss, DM particles accelerate without energy absorption through their interaction with the UEMF.

Care to share? What is a "lambda state?" There is no theory on the market that says you can move electrons without energy loss. The same applies to any other particle. Even if we have an electron (or dark matter, whatever) traveling through free space there is still energy loss. The loss is due to the random effects of the quantum idea of a vacuum rather than a Classical one... it is an effect called "vacuum fluctuations." Another way to look at is by looking at the entropy of the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instantonly (Post 34136)
It is understood the separation between electro and magnetic fields is 90 degrees.

More generally what you are thinking of are the E and B fields that create a propagating self-sustaining field, otherwise known as light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instantonly (Post 34136)
I expect that it is this modality that works with SR to produce inertia tension within the vacuum. I also suspect there is another 90 degree relationship between absolute 0 and vacuum that provides a SR effect in which the 90 degrees of the electromagnetic field breaks symmetry when the 0/vacuum 90 is enforced.

SR has nothing at all to do with some kind of temperature effect. At least it isn't until you write down the energy-momentum tensor in either SR or GR. I prefer GR because it gets right to the heart of it. Also, the only construction that I know of that is 90 degrees out of phase with both E and B fields is something called the "Poynting vector." (Insert "pointing" joke as you please. We've all done it.) The Poynting vector is essentially a conservation of energy topic and just happens to "point" in the direction of propagation of the wave.

And there are no fields in SR to have a field that break symmetry. Just what symmetry are you trying to break? You don't really get into that without a lot of QFT under your belt and my guess is that you haven't done that. If you want to look at a field that has a given symmetry the ubiquitous one is the EM field. But these fields don't break the symmetry between E and M.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instantonly (Post 34136)
I now suspect that the moon was not formed from a collision body. My conclusion here is that hyper-rotation of a massive body increases gravitation force between standard physical matter and DM. This should have produced the reverse effect of helium escaping through the steel sides of a container so that helium accumulated in the core of the rapidly rotating proto-earth, creating a spongy bubble that centrifugal force ejected.

This is nonsense. Sorry.

-Dan

Instantonly Feb 24th 2017 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark (Post 34138)




This is nonsense. Sorry.

-Dan

I will redress the rest of your answers when I have greater time. I do not accept the conclusion that DM played a role in the formation of the moon as nonsense. What I might note is that possibly it is not a greater gravitational force applied to DM by a rapidly rotating massive body but what amounts to a trap that collects DM at the core of the rapidly rotating body disallowing escape of DM that passes through the massive body.

You have provided a degree of direction I appreciate. I admit I have had to engage the subject of physics on my own time and with minimal direction but I have not done this without taking the scientific process seriously. Perhaps you might lay off the observations on what you believe I have not looked at and simply accept that I am technically an amateur physics enthusiast with questions I am seeking a means to address. Unless you personally wish to provide me a scholarship and act as my lecturer so that I can develop a professional level of language on the subject.

topsquark Feb 24th 2017 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instantonly (Post 34139)
I will redress the rest of your answers when I have greater time. I do not accept the conclusion that DM played a role in the formation of the moon as nonsense. What I might note is that possibly it is not a greater gravitational force applied to DM by a rapidly rotating massive body but what amounts to a trap that collects DM at the core of the rapidly rotating body disallowing escape of DM that passes through the massive body.

You have provided a degree of direction I appreciate. I admit I have had to engage the subject of physics on my own time and with minimal direction but I have not done this without taking the scientific process seriously. Perhaps you might lay off the observations on what you believe I have not looked at and simply accept that I am technically an amateur physics enthusiast with questions I am seeking a means to address. Unless you personally wish to provide me a scholarship and act as my lecturer so that I can develop a professional level of language on the subject.

I'm afraid I don't have that kind of time.

But here's some idea how to proceed. You need to list your reasons when you are talking about new evidence. What evidence do you have that would make you believe that dark matter has anything to do with the Moon? You are formulating an hypothesis: what data/evidence do you have that would support this argument? And remember you have to be able to replicate results that are already noted. I called your previous statement nonsense because you have provided absolutely no basis for your conclusions. (And that's ignoring your comments about symmetry breaking. I'm not even going to go there for now... I have similar comments for that but I feel that the point has already been made.)

-Dan

Instantonly Feb 24th 2017 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark (Post 34140)
I'm afraid I don't have that kind of time.

But here's some idea how to proceed. You need to list your reasons when you are talking about new evidence. What evidence do you have that would make you believe that dark matter has anything to do with the Moon? You are formulating an hypothesis: what data/evidence do you have that would support this argument? And remember you have to be able to replicate results that are already noted. I called your previous statement nonsense because you have provided absolutely no basis for your conclusions. (And that's ignoring your comments about symmetry breaking. I'm not even going to go there for now... I have similar comments for that but I feel that the point has already been made.)

-Dan

These are valid points and I admit I have not supplied explanation of what I am referring to as symmetry breaking or evidence of the conclusion regarding DM and moon body formation. You would understand that to do this requires either reference to aspects of supanovae events and high mass star stability or construction of an experiment to refer to.

The "conduction of electrons without resistance" I referred to is that found in lambda state helium experiments. I did not expect to have to be more specific as I assumed the lack of other examples might have made what I was referring to obvious.

Thank you for providing myself some direction to maintain a coherent direction to assess.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM.

Copyright © 2016 Physics Help Forum. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2008-2012 Physics Help Forum. All rights reserved.