Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KickAssClown
Ok, This is a unified field theory, so if you want to calculate said pendulum I will refer you to the Classical or Quantum method. Your choice really.
|
Since this is a field theory, use your theory to calculate the fields of moving charges. Predict something new about fields, but make some sort of prediction, even if trivial.
Also what you present is a "unified field theory" that doesn't agree with well tested physics: By seperating "quantum charge" and "classical charge" you guarantee the failure of the correspondance principle.
Quote:
|
Mass is then defined by Charge. In classical physics this is alluded to through a series of equations, which I will not elaborate on anymore than I have so far.
|
Right now, there simply is no proven theory of mass. The Higg's field is a conjecture, but as it stands mass values have to be put in to both classic and quantum theories by hand. Classical physics does not imply any linking of mass and charge.
If mass were defined by charge, the proton shouldn't have such a radically different mass compared to the electron.
Quote:
|
My theorm hinges on a few things, one of which is Magnetic Monopoles. I believe I know where to look. I predict that all matter is made up of two particle types, the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino.
|
Thats absurd. How can neutral particles ever combine in such a way as to produce charge? Charge conservation is one of the cornerstones of quantum and classical physics! You can't violate it at the start of a new theory without good reason.
Quote:
|
Right now I am not going to attempt to substantiate, as I can't. i don't have the predictions at current, and I need help, not critizism. I am asking that people take a leap of faith and assume for a moment that I am correct, build the model, test it, and then ridicule it. It is not constructive in this stage to ask me to 'backup" my claims.
|
A new theory is only as good as that which it predicts. You said you want help for your theory, and I can offer no more genuine help then pointing out where I think your logic went wrong.
Quote:
|
It comes down to this. If you wish to refute my findings then you need to refute the totality of QT and GR.
|
Nothing you have written on this thread seems to follow logically from quantum mechanics or general relativity.
Quote:
|
My theory is that these two monopoles are the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino. My most reassuring "proof" at this time is the neutron and it's decay. The thing that differentiates a Neutron from a Gluon and a Photon is that it has a magnetic moment.
|
You do realize that a magnetic moment produces a dipole field, not a monopole field right? It is a different thing entirely then the idea of magnetic monopoles.
Quote:
I am sorry I don't have my math together enough to stop and explain in detail each facet of Physics and Quantum Physics respectfully. I am trying hard and getting nearly no help what-so-ever.
Sources of information:
"Physics for Scientist and Engineers with Modern Physics 4th Edition, by Raymond A. Serway": as part of the Saunders Golden Sunburst Series
"Princibles of Quantum Mechanics 2nd Edition, by R. Shankar"
|
I'm quite familar with the material covered in both of those books. What you are covering is a radical (and in my mind, unwarranted) departure. May I suggest that before you attemp to develop a new field theory you learn some of the old? I'd suggest Classical Theory of Fields by Landau and Lifshitz. And then maybe Quantum Theory of Fields by Stone.
edit: fixed some typos
-Will
