Relative Quantum Charge Dyanamics

[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.

Here are the laws for easy reference:

Originally Posted by Newton's Laws of Motion

First law: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them.

Second law: The net force on an object is equal to the product of its mass and its acceleration.

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

Originally Posted by Maxwell's Equations with Monopoles

Gauss's Law:
Gauss' Law for magnetism:
Faraday's law of induction:
Ampère's law
(with Maxwell's extension):

Originally Posted by Coulomb's Law

In the special case of a spherical surface with a central charge, the electric field is perpendicular to the surface, with the same magnitude at all points of it, giving the simpler expression:



where E is the electric field strength at radius r, Q is the enclosed charge, and ε0 is the permittivity of free space. Thus the familiar inverse-square law dependence of the electric field in Coulomb's law follows from Gauss's law.

Gauss's law can be used to demonstrate that there is no electric field inside a Faraday cage with no electric charges. Gauss's law is the electrostatic equivalent of Ampère's law, which deals with magnetism. Both equations were later integrated into Maxwell's equations.

It was formulated by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835, but was not published until 1867. Because of the mathematical similarity, Gauss's law has application for other physical quantities governed by an inverse-square law such as gravitation or the intensity of radiation.

Originally Posted by Kepler's first law

The orbit of a planet about a star is an ellipse with the star at one focus.

There is no object at the other focus of a planet's orbit. The semimajor axis, a, is half the major axis of the ellipse. In some sense it can be regarded as the average distance between the planet and its star, but it is not the time average in a strict sense, as more time is spent near apocentre than near pericentre.

Originally Posted by Kepler's second law

A line joining a planet and its star sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time This is also known as the law of equal areas.

Suppose a planet takes 1 day to travel from points A to B. During this time, an imaginary line, from the Sun to the planet, will sweep out a roughly triangular area. This same amount of area will be swept every day regardless of where in its orbit the planet is.

As a planet travels in its elliptical orbit, its distance from the Sun will vary. As an equal area is swept during any period of time and since the distance from a planet to its orbiting star varies, one can conclude that in order for the area being swept to remain constant, a planet must vary in speed. The physical meaning of the law is that the planet moves faster when it is closer to the sun. This is because the sun's gravity accelerates the planet as it falls toward the sun, and decelerates it on the way back out.

Originally Posted by Kepler's third law

The squares of the orbital periods of planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axis of the orbits.


T = orbital period of planet
a = semimajor axis of orbit

So the expression has the same value for all planets in the solar system as it has for Earth.

That value is (with T in seconds, a in meters) .

Thus, not only does the length of the orbit increase with distance, the orbital speed decreases, so that the increase of the sidereal period is more than proportional.

See the actual figures: attributes of major planets.

This law is also known as the harmonic law.

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

* Zeroth law of thermodynamics, about the transitivity of thermodynamic equilibrium

If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium.

* First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy

The increase in the energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.

* Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

* Third law of thermodynamics, about absolute zero temperature

As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero for the case of a perfect crystalline substance.

Originally Posted by Dependent Origin

The widely accepted doctrine of dependent origination states that any phenomenon ‘exists’ only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in a complex web of cause and effect.

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.

I will be posting more Soon.

[UncleAl]

Obviously the Photon and Anti-Photon are the only particles that meet the Photonic State Criteria.

The photon is its own anti-particle. There are no anti-photons. Bloody crack a textbook.

BTW, git, the Standard Model and quantum field theory are experimentally validated to 14 significant figures across the board. A pedestrian multi-nuclear superconducting Fourier transform nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer (supercon FT-NMR) is good to 10+ significant figures - and all it does is kick then watch magnetic nucleus precession for a millilter of loose goo dumped into a tiny test tube. Undergrads line up to run their lab samples.

What does your "theory" say about the Bloch equations that describe NMR, MRI, EPR, Rabi oscillations... and other quantized magnetization vector trajectories?

http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/nmr/bloch/bloch.htm
http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~stuart/le...re1/sld001.htm
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/emr/Theory/blocheqs.htm
http://optics.szfki.kfki.hu/~cewqo20...019/node3.html

This is tentative, as i have forgotten how I arrived at such a conclusion.

You can't rederive your own maunder? Wow.

[KickAssClown]

A standardized table of Constants, units and other Symbolism:

• , Einstein's Tensor
• , Newton's Gravitational Constant
• , Net Charge
• , Magnetic Charge, north pole
• , Magnetic Charge, south pole
• , Magnetic Field
• , Electric Field
• , Velcocity
• , Acceleration
• , Mass, Rest (Classic Mass)
• , Mass, Relative (Classic Mass)
• , Mass, Magnetic Charged
• , Mass, Electric Charged
• , Energy, Rest
• , Energy
• , Force
• , Radius, Absolute; or distance
• , Time, Absolute
• , Radius, Relative
• , Time, Relative
• , Lorentz Factor
• , Photonic Net Charge
• , Planck's Constant
• , Planck constant, reduced
• , Permittivity Freespace
• , Permeability of Freespace
• , Permittivity
• , Permeability

I know there is allot more, but that is all I can remember without my Physics books. If I made any mistakes then, please, I encourage you to correct me. In a polite civil manner. I am not interested in slinging mud at the moment, in the axiom of:
"It is pointless to mud wrestle with pigs, they have fun and you get muddy."

[KickAssClown]

Gravitons
Space-Time Curviture Simply here for the Distance Contraction bit.
Defining Time by Webfeet, a brother who never got the props he deserved.
Matter made of space not Energy
space-time as a force opposing both gravity and energy.

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Re: Variable Speed of Light - 02-03-2005, 03:40 PM
I don't mean to seem presumtious or anything. Though i probably will.

In my Theory of Space-Time Quanta I predicted that the universe would "breathe" expanding and collapsing as areas expand and contract about the Mass-Energy they are affixed to. It would be like ripples and tides of a great ocean.

Mass-Energy would be the only thing that changed to balance the equation. I don't believe the constant c would have to change to balance said equation.

[arkain101]

Thats some heavy math KAC...

I will see how far I can get through it.

[KickAssClown]

Which shows a refinement on my origninal definition of the states of matter:

• First state is shown as fundemental Charge is equal but opposite, and therefore relationally shown as inverse to one another, such that:
  [1]
• Second state is shown as Balanced Fundemental Charge, such that the balance of charge obeys the relationship as such, 1 = 1/1, and is given as:
  [2]

I believe that this relationship makes unnessessary to develop third equation. Other than to note the Photonic Law.

A body of Net Charge that has exactly equal bodies of Fundamental Charge is Photonic in nature.

We can therefore Conclude that Mathematically and Logically that the Equation for Mass Energy Equivliancy is as follows:

Originally Posted by Tentative Conclusion

• Where:
  [1], is the energy definition for the ground state of the photon.
  [2] is the rest mass of a photon, which is inverse to it's maximal velocity (c).
  [3], is celeritas, and defined as 299792458 m/s
  [4], is planck's constant
  [5], is frequency.
  [6], is the Quantum number
  [7], is the Magnetica Quanta
  [8], is the Electrica Quanta
  [9], is velocity
  [10], is the Charge Balance

[KickAssClown]

What can be concluded from this Definition is that the Photon is not infact Massless, so much is equal to 1 mass.

Force:


Momentum:

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by Arkain101

-magnetic and electric fields act in an outward dimension behavior

This can't be true in my math.
Fundemental Charge (magnetica) and anti-charge are related as such:



Space-time is like wise related:

The equations below are the Stardard Theory expressions. I am attempting to figure them from what I know. I am attempting to exactly define the Electric constant.

Note: I apologize, but I had my dimensions flipped for Quantum Charge. As is shown by the Tesla, and the Magnetic Constant.

Note: In case it was missed, I have predicted a Magnetic Monopol. I will be analysising the properties of the Neutron, as soon as I can get the Quanta of Charge.

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

This can't be true in my math.
Fundemental Charge (magnetica) and anti-charge are related as such:



Space-time is like wise related:





Note: I apologize, but I had my dimensions flipped for Quantum Charge. As is shown by the Tesla, and the Magnetic Constant.

I see. I also understand. Light does act spacially. This is true for how it travels.

I can't argue my assumption much further yet, I am stuck on this particular problem. Inwards to outwards behaviour relationship.

I am looking into these equations currently;



Cant back up this proposal of inwards dimensional source just yet. I have not spent much time working on this since talking with you KAC.

[KickAssClown]

However I will note that implies that time is implicitly a property of interaction, and subject to relativistic observation. This would seem right for a point particle interaction across a distance, r.

I like to think about a body orbiting about another body that is said to be at "rest". This will be such that it is a three body system. Q, is the body that is our rest reference frame. q_1 is said to orbit relative to Q, such that it has time, t, and at a radius, r, of 3. q_2 is said to orbit relative to Q, such that it has time, t', and at a radius, r', of 4.

Time is measured in frequency of the orbiting bodies relative to the "rest" body.

I would like to hear people's thoughts.