Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

The Clown Model of Unified Field Theory.

This Model must agree with the Findings of ALL physical LAWS, if they violate or redefine THEORY, then that should be fine, as long as they explain why it is that they violate/redefine that theory.

Kepler's law and Columb's law follow from Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. You should add to this the following:



which is a slight generalization of schroedinger's equation. Here the H is the hamiltonian operator and i is the complex number and the ket psi is the physical state of the system, as per dirac notation.

You should also consider adding Einstein's field equations (at least in certain limits, it has never been tested in the large field limit).



Here the two index G tensor is the einstein tensor and T is the stress energy tensor. This is in units of G(gravitational constant) =c=1, so called geometerized units.

Keeping in mind with this and the Rules laid out for a unified field theory. It comes to be that the Unified Field theory must be fully scalable from the top-down and back up. therefore we must set out and discover what Indescrepancy it is that keeps the Correspondence Prinicible in place, such that there is a Difference between Quantum Mechanics and GR.

It isn't the correspondance principle that is the problem. The correspondance principle is what makes quantum mechanics possible (without the principle you have no way to derive any of the theory). Quantum is far more tested then general relativity, given that its easier to test things in the quantum world then the general relativity world. Hence, general relativity is likely the theory that needs correcting.
-Will

[KickAssClown]

My basic premise is this. All of physics is based on matter, and mass. All of physics still works on the classical definition of mass. Through Deductive, deconstructionist reasoning I have found that the completely classical definition of mass is lacking as it over looks a few things. It is from the classical definition of mass, both in GR and QT that screws it all up.

As such my definition for now of mass is:


From this I also find that Neither GR or QT have a Quantum of Charge, and as such the Classical Definition of Charge is fundementally flawed, following deductive, deconstructionist reasoning once again.

Those two that you contribute have already been examined and included in the theorm, just because something doesn't show up here does not mean that I haven't already concidered it.

As I have explained somewhere at "sometime", I have a body of nearly 100 pages of notes and derividations. I have misplaced these notes being a flawed human being that I am.

Further I have a very poor short term memory without something to trigger it so much of what I have to say is lost at the moment and I am trying my best to explain something that, at this point, is "complete" without further work. The theorm agrees, I have just in the last two weeks been developing the mechanics portion of it all.

It also doesn't help that I have to stop and explain very simple, non-contested physical prinicibles. My theorm arises Purely from laws, and as such has a hard time being proved or disproved, based upon acceptance of or rejection of the given laws.

My theorm further more, does not so much predict new phenomena, as it would seem that there is a good probability that as far as the Unification effort is concearned, there is no new things to predict. Only minor predictions of slight alterations to existing concepts and measurements, such as to arrive at purely exact defininitions of various properties of matter.

The biggest and seemingly most contriverstial proposition of this theorm is that of Quanta Charge.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

My basic premise is this. All of physics is based on matter, and mass.

You are already in trouble. If all of physics were matter and mass there would be no need for field theories, which, of course, deal with fields. So, in classical physics you need both fields and mass/matter/particles what have you.

In quantum theory, however, it could be said that all of physics is based on fields (as particles become excitations in those fields).

Through Deductive, ontological, deconstructionist reasoning

Then demonstrate your reasoning, instead of simply making assertions. Also, I have only heard the phrase ontological used in "ontological arguments" being apriori "proofs" of God's existence. Clearly that isn't what you are going for here? I'm also only used to "deconstructionist" in the Derrida sense, so can't figure out what you are aiming for. A bit of elucidation would be nice.

As such my definition for now of mass is:

First, I again point out that and are simply relics of a choice of unit. There isn't any real physical meaning to them. Second, what do you mean by epsilon and mu? Is this equation for the energy inside some continuous media? Isn't this equation dimensionally unsound? (energy on the left, dimensionless on the right)

From this I also find that Neither GR or QT have a Quantum of Charge, and as such the Classical Definition of Charge is fundementally flawed, following deductive, ontological, deconstructionist reasoning once again.

Charges come attached to particles, which are inherently discreet. Hence, even in classical theories there is a "quanta" of charge (that of the charge of the electron).

Those two that you contribute have already been examined and included in the theorm, just because something doesn't show up here does not mean that I haven't already concidered it.

I was just adding to your "quick reference" list of "laws."

It also doesn't help that I have to stop and explain very simple, non-contested physical prinicibles.

I haven't asked you to explain any non-contested physical principles, simply asked questions about your theory and made some criticisms where I thought you'd had a problem. You asked for feedback, so I'm giving.
-Will

[KickAssClown]

"quanta" of charge (that of the charge of the electron).

The electron is not the true quanta though. Also Electrons are not found in every single particle through out the spread.
If mass has charge.
and mass is energy
and charge is quantized
and energy is quantized
but quanta of energy is not quanta of charge
then energy must contain charge.
therefore the electron can't be the true carrier.

Deconstruction is used in the examination of fundemental assumetions and definitions. One takes apart each fundemental concept and examines it for overlooked components. I did that with mass and came to the conclusion that it is often over looked that mass has associated with it length, width, and depth. A photon is massless, and has only one spacial dimension associated with it, length.

Therefore I concluded that mass was a flawed definition. Mass by definition defined itself according to Volume. Which is odd concidering that EM Fields define themselves in similar fashion. So I went about trying to reconcile Mass-Energy-Charge Equivilancy, and came to the conclusion, through Dimensional Analysis, that Mass was incorrectly Defined.


Therefore I have concluded from the Permeability and Permittivity of a given substance that Mass-energy is defined as:

The Dimensions ultimately are given as r^2/t^2. However it is to be noted that charge is included, due to measurements of Teslas and Amperes.

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by Newton Third law:

Third law: To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).

As this is a LAW we can expand it's scope, to be true of just about everything

So we can re write it as:

Originally Posted by Third law:

To every Event (body interaction) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal body interaction in the opposite direction).

This comes into agreement with both GR and QT.

We can describe everything as Equal bodies of Field, with Equal distance Influence. We can simultatiously describe everything as being opposite of everything but itself, and therefore relative. With each body being it's own rest frame.

Therefore we can conclude that the Fundemental particles, would move at c, and that they would be Equal in all respects, except direction and due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, opposite in absolute chilarity.

[KickAssClown]

KickAssClown says:
http://www.jracademy.com/%7Enoussj/thesis.htm take a look at the first picture in that and this http://hypography.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=799&c=24, and take these two together.

you'll note in the time picture of the earth and the moon the z axis has been removed. Such that you only have x, y, t. ok, now imagine for a moment that the earth and the moon where orbiting each other at c

- > J <- ₪ņ∞≠↨ = Jay-qu says:
the coil would be tighter

KickAssClown says:
now imagine if you found the attraction axis (the center of "gravity") for the body, and looked out at the Earth and the moon orbiting one another at c. If you look from the perspective of one or the other then the apparent velocity would seem to be less that c. If you looked from the common point of the two bodies you would "see" each one moving at c

- > J <- ₪ņ∞≠↨ = Jay-qu says:
so

KickAssClown says:
I think anyway.
If you replace the Earth and the moon with two particles, you would have the photon. The two particles would be the neutrino and the anti-neutrino repectfully.

- > J <- ₪ņ∞≠↨ = Jay-qu says:
so one particle orbiting another? or are they the same mass?

KickAssClown says:
Mass at this scale have very little meaning. For now lets just say they are photon-like, and have zero rest mass.

Jay-qu says:
then what is the attraction that draws them into this movement?

KickAssClown says:
I redefine mass somewhat in my model, as it is an intrinsict result of the complex orbits of these two fundementals.

well, each on carries a property.

One carries attraction and the other carries repulsion, I think. I am still trying to figure out which is what. However it is noted that they are fermions, in classical sense, and have Absolute charility. They are equal but opposite, such that they attract together, but cannot occupy the same space, so they have to orbit.

Another interesting thing that arises from my model is then that Time is a function of the Geometry of Orbiting bodies.

[arkain101]

Kick,

It appears we are following the same tracks mostly here.

I redefine mass somewhat in my model, as it is an intrinsict result of the complex orbits of these two fundementals.

The two fundementals of space-time. Equal and perpendicular pair relationship, with time pushing through these two, in a 4th dimension sense.

So as a 'mass' accelerates you are stressing time or something of the type in a squaring fashion.

The combining of these two fundamental charges if you will, to develope light, equally and oppositely should affect this time flow in some way.

Just some insights of mine.

[KickAssClown]

Well I've recently been playing with a chicken-egg senario. See . But that is Relative, I think. If you have two bodies orbiting one another the equation holds for each.

so if we have two bodies orbiting about one another, if we go to the mid-point between them, and draw a circle making the radius of said circle the distance between the mean point and one of the orbiting bodies you get both bodies orbiting this point, in a helix pattern through "time" where time is the frequency of the orbiting bodies about the mean point.

x = cos (t)
y = sin (t)
z = t

[arkain101]

so if we have two bodies orbiting about one another, if we go to the mid-point between them, and draw a circle making the radius of said circle the distance between the mean point and one of the orbiting bodies you get both bodies orbiting this point, in a helix pattern through "time" where time is the frequency of the orbiting bodies about the mean point.

Got any drawings of this? Or could you elaborate?

[KickAssClown]

Ok you saw the picture I posted of the moon helixing about the earth through "time", correct?

Well if you adjusted the perceptive from the Earth to the mean point of orbit you would find that from that frame of reference the Earth and the Moon are both helixing through "time" about that point.

I forget the name of the mean point but it's used to calculate the orbits of multi-body systems, like in binary star orbits and their planet's orbits about the mean point.