Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Keeping in mind that Neutrinos/Anti-Neutrinos have zero Electric Charge, When the combine, theoretically they should produce a Photon, or two.Taking that and the Electron-Positron Pair Production, of two Photons of sufficent energy, we arrive at something of a paradox.

Clearly their is an issue here. Where oh where did the charge come from? I smell a violation of Conservation of Charge, here.

Umm... neutrino: charge neutral. Photon: charge neutral. Electron-positron pair: charge neutral (one is +,one is -). No reaction with only these elements can violate conservation of charge. All of these are neutral!
-Will

[KickAssClown]

Good point, I think.

I still note that it seems odd to me.

[KickAssClown]

I was thinking about Pauli Exclusion and orbits, and it occured to me why two bodies with opposite Charility can't occupy the same space-time.

It's Deconstructive Interference. A body can not occupy a point in Space-time, where a body moving relative to it will next occupy that same Space-time in the next frame.

If we think of our Bodies as Helixs with opposed twist. then they obviously can't overlap. otherwise, they will cross at points, and collide.

If we return to my c body fundamental charge, remembering that when they are moving relative to one another (in a bound orbit to one another) they will appear to be a double helix, with a twist. They will take turns occupying the "inside" of the helix and the "outside". Like a Braided Double Helix.

Like this for instance:
Braided Double Helix Nebulae (Note that it is Magnetic Field that is theorized to be responsible for this phenomena)
or like this (has a demostration of a bound charge system, it's the bright coloured thing):
Slipknot

from the Y, Z perspective.

[KickAssClown]

This is old but it is part of what brought me to where I am at, so I will post it for posterities sake for now.



This is a partial picture of what we think of as Matter and Space-Time. I haven't worked on this one for a while now, so I wll be getting back to it shortly. Hope it's as nifty to you as it is to me.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

You know how funny that sounds? The photon is defined in terms of Electomagnetics. Energy is defined in terms of the Photon.

You are the only person who defines all energy in terms of the photon! Photons are quantizations of energy in the maxwell fields. Electrons are fundamentally distinct from photons (they are quantizations in a different field, the dirac field!) and still carry energy. There are lots of ways to carry energy.

Gravity, according to what you go by, is either A) A force (mr/t^2) and related to potential energy, or B) A geodesic effect on energy propagating through space-time

Gravitational energy contribues to spacetime curvature the same as electromagnetic energy. This is a source of the non-linearirty in the field equations: energy curves space, as space curve, energy goes up and curves more space. This is obviously very qualitative in description.

Strong is like wise a force.

And we can define an energy for any conservative force.
-Will

[KickAssClown]

Here's a better example of the Field Particle picture I posted earlier.

Here's the idea so far. When you have equal bodies of Magnetic Charge, the magnetic field lines (or something like that) are equally distributed within the system, this system is said to be Internally consistent.

When the System has an imbalance, as in the case of mass, the shape that is created is an imperfect sphere, there becomes "free" magnetic field(s) (or something like that), which can catch other "free" magnetic field(s), this creates a sort of "drag", which results in relative velocities. The system is said to be Internally inconsistent and Externally Dependent on Electric Equalibrium.

Gravity, though I have a hard time drawing it, is similar, except that each field contributes to the overall attraction/repulsion.

Most (if not all) bodies of mass have within them Internally Consistent Magnetic Charge Systems. These are known in the standard model as Gluons. You can think of Glouns like a Cage for extra magnetic charge. I imagine that they create exclusion zones around the extra magnetic charge, due to Pauli Exclusion.

More as I come up with this junk.

[KickAssClown]

Psuedo-Scalar nature of Binary Mass formation.
It is interesting to note that with the redefinition of of mass as a product of psuedo-scalars comes interesting applications to the various equations which are mass-energy dependent.

If I had more familarity with tensor, perhaps I could express my theorm in regards to things such as Gravitiation and perhaps come up with some testable results.

It is also interesting to note, that if we give the pseudo-scalar Monopoles properties such as velocity for instance, we get interesting results.

As I understand it, if it is a Psuedo-scalar times a Psuedo-Scalar it is a scalar, and if it is a Psuedo-Scalar times a Psuedo-Scalar time a Psuedo-scalar then it is a Psuedo-Scalar once again.

Velocity is a scalar, if I am not mistaken.
So, postulating that there is a fundamental absolute distance which can not be less than 1 between interacting particles (or waves for that matter. Pun not intended), we can begin placing limits. Correct? Also with further postulation and some knowns we can play around with this concept.

Note: Our monopoles are, I believe treatable as either Particle or wave. If they are treated as wave it is important to note that they would be Longitudinal waves, not Traverse.

Hypothesis: Energy, which has been assumed to be exact balance of monopoles, will always be energy if the angle between it's component waves is 90*. That as it veries and becomes mass, the angle of the wave-plains will very within 0* and 360*.

If angle , then it is an energy pattern, and will have zero mass (or properly will be the lowest state, with an absolute mass-energy equivialant to 1).

If angle , and then the result will be mass.

I have been playing around with this for a while but I have no definite math for it yet.

Assuming that the bodies will move tangent to one another and that they are chiral, being Fermions, they will move as close as quantumly acceptable, filling lower acceptable orbits first and then will fall into orbit.

In line with the Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple, these units of magnetic field are Absolute, and therefore relative to opposing chiral bodies will have a mass index purportionate to the number of obeserving (interacting) chiral bodies.

The more you know about their charge, the less you know about their mass-energy. This can be expressed as a ratio, I just am drawing a blank as to how to show that properly. In formal mathematic language.

Also it should be noted that their is a decided bias indicated by the handedness of the monopoles and their hypothetical tendencies. I believe this bias can be further explored through the universal Proton-Electron ratio.

Special note for HydrogenBond. Hypothetically, under my model the Proton does not have a true +1 charge value, but near to and the Neutron does not have a true zero charge value but near to. This is interesting and worthy of note because water is composed of mostly oxygen and hydrogen, hydrogen being composed of Proton-Electron pairs, in which under my hypothesis would have a significant higher negative charge than traditionally thought, without the Neutron to balance the equation. This bring up an interesting inequity in the nature of water and the role of the hydrogen bond.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Velocity is a scalar, if I am not mistaken.

Velocity is a vector, not a scalar.
-Will

[KickAssClown]

What's the difference. Also, while your at it, what's the relationship of a Tensor, Scalar, and vector?

[KickAssClown]

Alright so what I am purposing is non-normal I think. In this picture, all angles add up to With time the angles will add up to . What I purpose is that the angles can be modified by imbalance of the contributing Lognitudal waves.

So the angle between z and y is not always equal to . It will deform based on the number of bodies/waves contributing to either particle/wave. I am not sure what this would look like, formally. I am further unsure what this would look like weather the angle would grow wider with a greater magnitude of either wave or weather it would shrink. I am not very good with mathematics as I have said before, I am however rather good at concepts.

I am interested to know what people think. This is essential non-euclidian geometry, but for three (or four) dimensional objects.



This is where the Idea originated.

Note: Monopoles, in my hypothesis are Longitudial. I have no real backing for that other than it feels right. Further it would seem logical because mass-energy is Traverse.