Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[KickAssClown]

Ok, so I am going to try and put into plain english my basics. Things which you people need to know to understand what I am getting at here.

First things first. The driving questions.

What is Mass?
What is Energy?
What is Matter?
What is Charge?
What is Force?
What is their relationship to one another?

The basic assumeptions:

Mass is derivide of energy.

The gram is then, not a fundamental unit but instead defined in terms of something else.

Energy is derivide of Absolute Charge distance over opposed Absolute Charge time.

c assumes the value of absolute charge and it's anti to be exactly equal and thereby cancelable.

All forces are derived of one force. (unified force)

No body is with an absolute charge of zero. All matter has absolute charge.

Classical charge is relative charge, or summed charge, and therefore not absolute.

Charge is quantasized, though this quanta is as of yet unknown.

All things are quantasized. At the fundamental limit, all things reduce to a minimum of 1. It is likely that there is a threshold limit also, by which no value can grow larger than, without shifting outside of our observable limits.

These are some of the more basic, though not truely fundamental ideas that have driven paradigm design. These assumeptions brought about and were brought about by some other key ideas from systematic study of various phenomena through out my references.

It is by virtue of the assertion that if all forces reduce to one force, then all phenomena must then derive from the same substance. Logical choice to me was the one we have best defined. Electro-magnetic in orgin, and characteristic of both wave and particle properties.

The photon, being thought of as a zero mass body of matter was a prime canidate for my fundamental, but it had a few issues with it. The Chief one being the question of it's divisibility. Most are not concearned with it, the general consensus is that a photon's Electric and Magnetic fields can not be seperated and could not propagate alone. Something about field regeneration.

However I couldn't ignore the intimate relationship that the photon shared with mass and space-time. So I concidered other phenomena which might give some insight into my investigations.

That's when I hit upon Monopoles. The issue of observing free monopoles has been so far, that in division of a magnet dipole, you end up with a magnet dipole. My conciderations were many. Of which was the question: "What happens if you split a photon?" I had something of an answer.

I would bet the result of splitting a photon, neglecting the details on how that would happen for now, would be a monopole. because what would result would undoubtably be irreducible. Which then hit on another dillema. How do observe that which is not mass or energy? The answer was in simple terms, you don't without tainting the purity of the body being observed. Heinsenberg Uncertainty and Dependent Observation.

So it seemed evident to me, from careful deductions, that monopoles would ultimately have to make up Matter and Energy.

I'll sleep on this and maybe add more in the morning.

[KickAssClown]

Alright, I've reviewed a few times and I understand where the lack of focus and the conceptual issues arise from.

I need to ask that my previous terminology be forgotten for now. It's back to basics.

Alright. Albert Einstein released a paper on the nature of energy, mass, space and time. In it he showed a geometric view of the universe, and of gravity. He related how one can manipulate time by simply manipulating distanced travelled. That time and space are one in the same. He also related energy to mass, and a relationship of mass-energy to space-time. What I purpose, and what Einstein apparently didn't see, is that space-time and Mass-energy are all of the same fundamental blox. Matter.

The concepts of Mass and energy are neglected in objective analysis of physics. They are terms which are used frequently, without respect to the fact that they are unexamined. The best answer you can get when asking what they are is that they are substance. That they are matter. When you ask what is matter, you get definite "we don't know.", after long hours and much pestering of those who are so sure of what they already know.

This for a scientist, is admit of defeat. Doubly so for an engineer.

So, please heed what I have to say, and bare with it. Accept it, sample it, test it, then reject it.

I have asked before, here and else where. What are boundries, and how are they defined? When I bounce a ball, what keeps it from going through the ground? When I attempt to leave the atmosphere what keeps me from doing so? What holds me here?

Both of these are boundries, and are things which are not looked at objectively in physics. Mostly traditional thoughts reign supreame in the discussion of such things.

Now Einstein shook the traditions to the core when he purposed geometrics and curved space-time. Even to day many people who say they get it, obviously don't. His ideas even now are widely contested.

So I ask, what defines the boundries of space-time? Are the boundries of space-time different from the boundries of mass-energy and matter? My only possible answer, is very simply "No, the boundries are not different."

My reasoning is actually fairly simple. Einstein purposed what is called "The Equivalence Principle". If their are boundries that hold me to the surface of a solid, and boundries that keep me from falling through that same surface and they both are described the same, except for direction, then it would seem that they are the same.

Here's what I think Einstein missed. He allowed boundries to exist, but he failed, as many scientist do, to explain what the boundries are made up of. Now there are many explinations but few which fit the criteria of science. So I would have to guess that the boundries of the system, of the visible universe would have to be none other than matter, or substance. This would be rather consistent I think with a number of concepts. The Dirac sea comes to mind in addition to Space-Time Fabric.

Furthermore, it would seem intuitively wrong that these things should all be made up of different fundamental forms with different attributes, if they all interact. If they are all matter, then they all have the same common elemental properties.

Here's the thing and this is the brain buster for me. Mass-energy, Space-time, Charge-Spin, the various flavors, the four forces and all of that would then be all based on one axiomatic object. Matter. They are all properties of this axiom.

It becomes relevant then to talk about what is the fundamental, the smallest constituant of aggregate matter? Atoms are not it. Photons are dual natured and virtual. Leptons would be a good place to look, it would seem. However, quarks make this interesting. If all matter is homogenous, then would it not follow that the matter that makes up an electron would be the same matter that makes up a proton?

I would think so. Infact I would think that the splitting of the atom and the decay of the neutron, as well as many other well documented phenomena would indicate this to be true. Most of all the idea of universal energy exchange, in quantized packets called photons.

So, let's now shift a bit. We'll talk a little bit about Geometry, Computer science and Graphic arts. In Geometry we talk about these interesting constructs called points, lines, and angles. In Graphic arts we would be more concearned with vertices, lines, polygons, angles, and key frames. In Computerscience we wouldn't be so concearned with those, as we would be with arrays, vectors, and matrices.

What these concepts have to do with the majority discussion, is that they all have to do with representing geometric constructs. We might call this boundry analysis. In my understanding what defines a polygon is not the lines making up the polygon, but the points that make up the line.

Taken into the context of Mass-energy, Charge-spin, and Space-time, this concept would be the question. What is the line and what is the point? My answer would be simple. Matter is the point; mass-energy, would be the line and space-time would be the boundry the line resides in.

Space-time and Mass-energy are really one in the same, they are both properties of matter interactions, that is point-to-point interactions.

Obviously there are very certain rules to it all, that grow more complex as you examine the data and generate information about the interactions. However the elements remain the same. The only thing that differs in any given observation is the properties of the matter-matter interactions.

It is on this that I base my theorm.

Next: Neutrinos, Massless?

Related Threads:
DoctorDick's A simple geometric proof with profound consequences

[KickAssClown]

I know I promised Neutrinos, however I realize that I have to cover some more basic portions.

Matter must have null mass-energy. When considered alone, a single body of matter can not have any meaningful properties like mass-energy or space-time.

These properties only become meaning when they diverge from uncertain to certain. That is when we add more bodies of matter to the considered system. alone a point is nothing. However you place them in relation to one another, and they gain properties from their positional relationships alone.

Take for instance the old Geometric expression. . Energy is intimately tied to this expression. can be expressed as .

If we consider the elementary matter that makes up the mass, it becomes apparent that we are talking about aggregate matter seperated by what we call distance. Due to our universe's dynamic nature, they are also seperated by what we generally refer to as time.

When we talk about energy we are talking about potential change for geometric shape, and from moment to moment there are very exact legal transformations that can be made to a shape. I don't know how to express it but Mass-Energy to me seems to be related to the maximum potential legal states that an aggregate body of matter can take from moment to moment.

One of the interesting facets of this, is that the universe is self-contained by this. As we no longer bound matter by space but rather bound space by matter.

I like to conceptualize a graph, like so.


Then ask myself, if I limit the positions that a point can occupy to interger values, what is space? Space is what is not possible locations on the grid.

So from our points we find lines, from 1D lines we find 2D shapes, from 2D shapes we find 3D shapes. We add in transformations, and we end up with 4D shapes, as they now change shape from frame to frame, due to transformations.

That is to say that Matter is zero-dimensional. . From this zero dimensional, point fundamental we can find things like distance. From distance, we find time. From that many other things become findable. The puzzling thing is when you start considering these bodies of aggregate matter from far out (relative) distances, and in interactions between such bodies seperated by such distances.

There are many centers of matter and they are all off setting one another, in constant transformation. Between the seperate bodies of matter, say a planet and a sun, you may treat (more or less) each body as if it were a point.

Treat it as an element in an matrice. This I think is where gravity and space-time bend comes about, is in the non-pointlike treatment of aggeragate matter, because it arises that there is a difference of distances between seperate bodies of matter.

1 unit of distance between two points of matter may not be a common 1 unit of distance between one of the former points and another. They may still be one unit of distance apart, but have "greater" space between them, or lesser even.

These seperate bodies of matter I would refer to as seperate frames of reference.

This model leads to many such interesting perspectives. For instance when combined with a certain paper regarding the speed of light through a casimir vacuum, one finds that it would seem possible, even reasonable that propagation (signal speed) is independent of distance between two or more bodies of matter. That one finds bell's inequity just from that.

Faster-than-c signals, special relativity, and causality

[KickAssClown]

Predicted properties of fundamental matter.

Fermion, Lepton (Obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics, and Pauli Exclusion as a result)
Massless (mass-variant, based on aggregate matter field or the "medium")
Pseudo-scalar (Zero Dimensional alone. 1+ dimensional in aggregate)
Binary (Positive, and Negative)

Now when I say massless, I don't mean you can't measure mass in relation to the fundamentals, but that to do so is to invite mostly meaningless data. It should make sense, when placed into the context that mass is a property of matter, and not the otherway around. It is only in talking about matter in relation to other matter does the property of mass become meaningful. In relation to itself, matter is without the property of mass.

This is what I meant by "Mass at this scale (below planck's length) has little to no meaning."

[KickAssClown]

So from this I want you, the reader to contemplate something.

Law of the Limitation of Empirical Measurements:
Any measurement involves two or more fundamental elements.
No measurement will ever result in a singular fundamental element.
No measurement can measure a true fundamental.

Therefore we can conclude from this that there does not exist a truely fundamental empirical measurement.