Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Nov 13th 2013, 10:12 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
No. There are four types of "charges," one for each force. This is not going to simply be swept under the rug no matter what kind of theory develops in the future.


No. There are seven basic types space-time types that particles have (as opposed to internal symmetries): scalar, pseudo-scalar, vector (also known as "polar vector"), pseudo-vector (also known as "axial vector"), spinor, and symmetric or anti-symmetric tensor. For example, the gravitons we've all been discussing are second rank tensor particles.


No. There are two types of particle in this sense: massive and massless. They have different space-time symmetry properties and cannot be "melded" into a single concept.

Look, I am actually open to new ideas. But they have to get around to either explaining what we already know as well as possibly coming up with new possibilities. I'm sure you've got something that comes up with new ideas...and I'm "hip" to that. But nothing you are saying seems to explain what's already here and measured.

-Dan
I started out investigating an atomic model that did not require the strong and weak nuclear forces... along the way I asked myself some questions, one of which was how do collisions occur at the sub atomic level? Certainly it is much different than those at the atomic level, I concluded that they are purely field interaction (actually I suppose even at the atomic level it is purely field interaction).

I have found myself looking at the universe from the "opposite end" that is rather than looking for more primal constituents, I am proposing what the primary constituent must be, and working up from there. Recently the Higgs particle was investigated and found to have at least 4 "colors" so certainly even the Higgs particle is made up of even more primitive constituents. I do believe however that the Higgs is a very close descendant of the primary "particle".

What we perceive as particles and forces are actually manifestations of field interactions between these primary constituent fields.

I have been doing some thinking about the Einstein field equation... I think it might be melded with (The Mandelbrot set) but I am not a mathemetician.

I am working on a graphic to demonstrate how we, as observers are hopelessly trapped in space/time. It will demonstrate a reference outside of space/time. For now I will try to paint a picture with words...

2 observers observing 2 balloons being inflated at an accelerating rate, while one observer remains stationary the other is whisked away at the same rate at which the balloons are expanding. What will the 2 observers see? which observer are we?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 13th 2013, 10:16 AM   #12
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
Question

So are saying that the current zoo of particles are actually different aspects of the same type of thing,
but perhaps because they are viewed under different conditions, from different perspectives, they look different.

Or are you proposing an ultimate fundamental universal building block from which everything (quarks, photons, bosons, hadrons etc...) are made?
MBW is offline  
Old Nov 13th 2013, 10:25 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
I am proposing an ultimate fundamental universal building block from which everything (quarks, photons, bosons, hadrons etc...) are made.

If you look at the universe as a collection of fields you will see evidence of these toroids! look at any particle or any galaxy or galactic cluster or even the entire observable universe and you will see toroidal fields.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...

Last edited by Troll; Nov 13th 2013 at 10:27 AM.
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 13th 2013, 10:41 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Understand that this field is not like the field around a torus, but rather as the field around a rotating sphere (Earths magnetic field for example), however this field would be around a single point! At this single point time stops and space is compressed completely... the result is nothing(nothing changes and a single point encompasses no space)! beyond this point however interaction would occur.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 13th 2013, 10:45 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
I have been thinking about an experiment... I would like to look at laser light from a single source, split it and run one beam through a long series of mirrors to see if there is a frequency shift in the "old" light. It seems simple enough, but alas there are a great deal of hurdles to overcome to create such an experiment... any ideas? perhaps there is a way to observe and measure this in nature?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 15th 2013, 06:32 AM   #16
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,425
frequency shift of laser light

There is nothing in wave theory which would predict such a shift. Amplitudes and Phase can change but not the frequency. And as you have not mentioned any relative motion, there wouldn't be anyperceived Doppler shift either. What do you propose will cause this shift? If two light beams from the same coherent source are used to set up an interference pattern and then one of them is replaced by the mirrored beam , a shift in the fringe pattern may be seen, but this is due to different path differences / phase changes. If you have not come across the Michelson - Morely experiment, you might look it up. It could give you some ideas for what you propose to do.
physicsquest is offline  
Old Nov 15th 2013, 01:41 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by physicsquest View Post
There is nothing in wave theory which would predict such a shift. Amplitudes and Phase can change but not the frequency. And as you have not mentioned any relative motion, there wouldn't be any perceived Doppler shift either. What do you propose will cause this shift? If two light beams from the same coherent source are used to set up an interference pattern and then one of them is replaced by the mirrored beam , a shift in the fringe pattern may be seen, but this is due to different path differences / phase changes. If you have not come across the Michelson - Morely experiment, you might look it up. It could give you some ideas for what you propose to do.
Thanks for the tip! I will certainly look at that(sounds familiar)...

I understand phase shift, and I realize there is nothing in wave theory to suggest such a shift(perhaps as I stated Mandelbrot could improve it). If you give some thought to my balloon experiment, you will realize that as observer (a) sees things the distance between observer (b) and the balloons is increasing at an accelerating rate, however observer (b) will be unaware of such a change.

If the universe is expanding (along with ourselves) in such a way, in our "reality" distant bodies would not be receding! However the redshift in light from these bodies indicates that they are... What is the truth? Perhaps both! If "aged" light was red shifted due to the effect of the expansion on time very "old" light would be red shifted.

Could this experiment be done with prisms?

I have refreshed myself on Michelson - Morely. I am talking about a red shift that occurs because the light originated at a time in the distant past*. It would be difficult to construct an apparatus accurate enough that would be able to delay the beam enough to get a significant measure... the disruptive effects of imperfections in the mirror surfaces would certainly spoil the experiment. A solution does occur to me, we could measure the distance to a far off object and measure it again in several years to see if the red shift had changed... Uh... yeah... been done and the conclusion is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate... dang! Does anyone see my dilemma in performing such an experiment? More importantly does anyone see the importance of such an experiment?

Perhaps an experiment could be performed involving the interaction of the fields?

*My Hypothesis is that at the center point of my toroidal fields, space is ultimately dense and time does not exist(it is at a stop) beyond this point time proceeds at an accelerating rate(same as the spacial expansion), if this is the case, very distant light would have originated in time that was proceeding at a slower pace hence light waves would be longer.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...

Last edited by Troll; Nov 15th 2013 at 02:57 PM.
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 15th 2013, 05:20 PM   #18
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
What we perceive as particles and forces are actually manifestations of field interactions between these primary constituent fields.
Excellent! This is because they are...this is not new Physics, it is the basis for Quantum Field Theory.

Originally Posted by Troll View Post
I have been doing some thinking about the Einstein field equation. I think it might be melded with (The Mandelbrot set) but I am not a mathemetician.
WTF?? What does the Mandelbrot set have to do with subatomic particles, fields, and GR? I'm sorry but this is an utterly ridiculous statement.

Originally Posted by Troll View Post
If you look at the universe as a collection of fields you will see evidence of these toroids! look at any particle or any galaxy or galactic cluster or even the entire observable universe and you will see toroidal fields.
Any circular (or circularly symmetric object which would include spherical) mass that is rotating will generate effectively toroidal gravitational fields. This also in not new. Torioidal fields (fields of what in this case?) in subatomic particles may be possible due to symmetries in the Lagrangian, but we know nothing about that level of Physics and probably won't for a long time, though String Theory would have something negative to say about that.

All in all I have to question your resistance to the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why are you so against them? The weak force is part of Electoweak theory and is one of the more well validated theories in all of Physics. Strong theory is not as well verified (as there is still more than one theory for it), but no one denies that there aren't elements that all theories agree upon: asymptotic freedom, and something mystically called "The 8-fold way" which is the quark model. The quark model has passed every test that I am aware of. The stong and weak nuclear forces are a fact of life, I'm afraid.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Nov 15th 2013 at 05:25 PM.
topsquark is offline  
Old Nov 15th 2013, 06:08 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Excellent! This is because they are...this is not new Physics, it is the basis for Quantum Field Theory.

WTF?? What does the Mandelbrot set have to do with subatomic particles, fields, and GR? I'm sorry but this is an utterly ridiculous statement.

-Dan
Please calm down... I am not trying to debunk quantum theory, I simply think that there is a duality of observation that might be quite helpful! Here is an example that I think mathematicians and physicists might find more entertaining than balloons.

A parabola is the intersection of a cone and a plane that is parallel to the axis of the cone...

If the cone has an apex angle of 90 degrees and extends to infinity what would a plot of a parabola look like on a graph that extended to infinity?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 15th 2013, 06:16 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Excellent! This is because they are...this is not new Physics, it is the basis for Quantum Field Theory.

WTF?? What does the Mandelbrot set have to do with subatomic particles, fields, and GR? I'm sorry but this is an utterly ridiculous statement.

-Dan
In an infinite universe everything that is possible, is... an infinite number of times! If we could look beyond the observable universe (towards the macro), eventually we would see repetition. Likewise towards the micro. The universe would resolve to a fractal.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Tags
constituent, entities, primary, universe



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The end of the universe(by eye) philipishin Special and General Relativity 1 Aug 23rd 2016 05:15 PM
Is the Universe Random? MBW Philosophy of Physics 25 Jun 25th 2016 03:48 AM
The Unobservable Universe Mandrake Special and General Relativity 8 Nov 1st 2013 05:31 PM
what is primary color and what is its significance?? kenny1999 Light and Optics 1 Sep 2nd 2009 10:42 AM
Determinism of our Universe arbolis Philosophy of Physics 6 Jul 27th 2009 10:19 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed