Happy PI Day 3.1415 [2015-03-16 drawings added, some edits]
Table of Contents
- Abstract
- Developments
- Movement in the mnp Model
- Rings and Coils and Direction of Rotation
- Testable Prediction: Nuclei Rotate on Earth and so Prefer a Spin
- Appendix
- Why the mnp Model? Why Now?
- The mnp Model as Conceptually Compact
- The Structure of Space
- Roadmap of Future Blogs
- Humor
Developments Over the Last Eleven Months
The last blog post was April 15, 2014 - "On Information, Fields, Gravitons and Mediators" which could have been titled "Toward a Constituent Field Theory." It was preceded by two posts which could have been titled "On Energy and h in the mnp Model"
Since then, most of the unpublished notes fall into four categories: magnetism, Constituent Theory, movement, and musings on approaches and philosophy.
This post will address movement, since that contains a testable hypothesis, with musings on "mnp in Concept Space" in the Appendix.
Movement in the mnp Model
Consider the first of the Hauser Criteria "can you show F=ma at least in some limit" and the underlying issue "What is movement." The mnp Model's intent is to answer why the experimental results, including conservation of momentum, beyond the very useful mathematically based "velocity in an inertial frame has a zero derivative with respect to time, therefore it must be conserved." What is needed for a model of movement, if movement is to emerge rather than being posited mathematically? At any given velocity, inertia is maintained. A steady state for a free lepton / an electron or positron should, probably, represent a steady state for the basic entities in a Model like mnp that posits "substructure." The first image of movement, from 2011, in the mnp Model showed a ring with the effective orientation of travel for each of the basic entities in the ring angled at asin(v/c) This suggested that a complete cycle of the ring would take 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as much time for a complete cycle as for a stationary ring. The "linked rings" model was soon abandoned, replaced later by the coiled loop model, which moves and hangs together better. Going back and modeling coils as a set of rings may be a useful abstraction as a first order approximation to model movement, coil orientation, and distribution.In this post, the author will try a model based on having all the basic entities in an electron or positron at the same angle to the coil, so that variation of the coil is absent or minimized. Based on "all tests of the electron and muon indicate that they are homogeneous." Choose an attack angle asin(v/c).
[2015-03-16] Diagrams and explanatory text added:
The careful reader may note that the author has finally allowed the Axis to parallel Travel for p's, the reverse of all previous blogs and writings that considered the n entities that make up electrons to have Axis parallel to Travel. The new diagram, with n's Axis anti-parallel to Travel, is seen as more convenient for physicists to learn and for the mathematics to more easily follow current conventions of charge sign.
1) Basic Entity Travel Around a Ring/Coil at "Low" Particle Velocity for n's and p's
2) Basic Entity Travel Around a Ring/Coil at "Moderate" Particle Velocity for n's and p's
3) Basic Entity "Travel" Around a Ring/Coil at High Particle Velocity for n's
Notice that the net Travel influence along the tangent of the coil/ring is constant at all velocities if the net effect is proportional to the cosine of the angle between "fellow travelers." The author was excited to see that the net effect of Axis would also be constant at all velocities, with the Axis of the m mediators balancing the reduction in Axis effect from the n's or p's traveling more in the direction of particle movement as velocity increases. On further review and introspection, this Axis effect is probably not likely in the current Model. In quarks, with a mix of n and p strands, the author finds it unlikely that equivalent portions of the m's would have diametrically opposed Axes. More likely is that all the Axis attraction effect for the m's would lead to the m's Axes pointing inward. Comment: the saving grace of this adjuctment/correction is that the Axis attraction, while less than the Travel attraction, will tend to keep the coil and mediators locked together at high velocities.
End drawings added [2015-03-16]
The drawings show adding mediators m's in proportion to 1/cos(v/c) with the "angle of attack" for each ring. Side comment: If mediator m's join the basic coil in proportion to 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the resultant around the coil may be the same. It is not true momentum, so further development and understanding will be needed. The advantage of this sort of model is that the energy seem in high energy particle physics is carried with the particle as relativistic energy, without a need to recruit energy/mass in a collision.
The drawings show the Axis of recruited/entrained m's as perpendicular to the tilted plane of the ring. Actually, the Axis is more likely to be in toward the center of the ring since that is perpendicular to the movement but in the plane of the bend in the coil
Ideally, one would like a distribution of rings that allows smooth consistent behavior of the constituent figments (no sharp turns …) Note that the stationary case will have "torque" in that there will be an odd number of coils, so quantum mechanic's spin is safe for now.
[2015-03-16] The variation in coil/ring orientation may be simply modeled as a sin distribution, with essentially no rings at the extremes of "possible" orientation since no coils will be actually perpendicular to movement. A few coils may transiently have orientation outside the "possible" orientations, with a portion of the coil moving backwards in the underlying Minkowski space, but that transient situation would theoretically not exist for electrons or positrons in pure steady state inertial movement.
[2015-03-16] Note: The coordinate system has theta ranging 0 to pi/2 with a LR (or +-) "dimension" for rotation direction, which will be more convenient than seeing the coil orientations as two separate ranges angles because the numbers wind up in separate regions 0 to pi/2 and 3pi/2 to 2pi that are contiguos physically but not numerically.
This seems almost too neat - approaches the c limit properly, carries the mass along for interactions that the high energy experiments see, inertia possible as long as energy (m's) isn't taken. We need to see what shape the coils will take, but the travel direction changing smoothly to the c limit case of ring moving along its axis looks good.
At a given velocity of movement, answering the question "what is the distribution of ring orientations?" will be investigated in reverse. For a given angle to the ring, what is the distribution of ring orientations and the resultant average movement velocity for the particle/collection of rings.
[2015-03-16]
4) Geometry of Ring/Coil Oriented at Angle Theta to Direction or Particle Movement
If the ring axis aligns with the direction of particle movement, the effective movement will be at v. If the ring axis is perpendicular to the direction of movement, the net progress will be 0. Conveniently, the net effect on movement of a ring tilted at theta is v cos theta. So to move, the coil wants few or no rings perpendicular to movement. In a steady state, theta sub max should be no more than pi/2 -asin(v/c).
If the distribution of ring orientations between theta = 0 and theta = pi/2 - asin(v/c) is a sin distribution sin(theta pi / (pi/2-asin(v/c))) So the net movement, before renormalization, is integral v cos theta sin(theta pi/(pi/2-asin(v/c))) from 0 to pi/2-asin(v/c). From Gradshteyn(1965) 2.533 #1 where b is 1 and a is pi/(pi/2-asin(v/c)) is -cos(a+b)theta/(2(a+b)) - cos(a - 1 theta / 2(a - 1) where b is always greater than 1. The normalizing denominator for the probability distribution function is the integral from 0 to pi/2-asin(v/c) of sin(theta pi/(pi/2-asin(v/c))).
Table of Effective Average Velocity for Given "Velocity" Angle in Coils
| v/c | net v factor | net v |
| 0.0000 | 0.6667 | 0.0000 |
| 0.0872 | 0.6996 | 0.0610 |
| 0.1736 | 0.7313 | 0.1270 |
| 0.2588 | 0.7616 | 0.1971 |
| 0.3420 | 0.7906 | 0.2704 |
| 0.4226 | 0.8180 | 0.3457 |
| 0.5000 | 0.8438 | 0.4219 |
| 0.5736 | 0.8678 | 0.4978 |
| 0.6428 | 0.8901 | 0.5721 |
| 0.7071 | 0.9105 | 0.6438 |
| 0.7660 | 0.9289 | 0.7116 |
| 0.8192 | 0.9453 | 0.7744 |
| 0.8660 | 0.9597 | 0.8311 |
| 0.9063 | 0.9719 | 0.8808 |
| 0.9397 | 0.9820 | 0.9227 |
| 0.9659 | 0.9898 | 0.9561 |
| 0.9848 | 0.9955 | 0.9804 |
| 0.9962 | 0.9989 | 0.9951 |
| 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
Note that at lower velocities, the effective average velocity of movement is less by as much as 33 percent. At lower velocities, should we just increase the angle between stationary ring plane and the figment travel direction by up to 50% to compensate? The author is unwilling to make that leap, given his interest in finding something conforming to Lorentz transformations. The error bars appear to be, much too large to make a simple ring collection/set of coils a plausible slam-dunk of a concept.
Is there a distribution function that would allow the coil angle to match the net average velocity? Not with the simple geometry and distributions shown so far, unless every coil had axis at theta = 0.
So for now, the author prefers to leave this investigation "incomplete" rather than resorting to "tuning."
A constituent theory would be compatible with this understanding (and maybe the math) since instead of needing to show a mechanism it could rely on "it just works" and "here' is the 'math' to prove it."
Rings and Coils and Direction of Rotation
The author had early on thought of making left rotating coils have theta angle 3pi/2 to pi, but finds it easier to separate left from right coils by a "logical" dimension LR so that the theta angle range is compact. But that side trip lead to an appreciation for the need to have an equal or almost equal distribution of right and left rotating coils. Off by one is suggested by past mnp articles. And to an appreciation, at high velocities, for the difficulty coils have in "crossing over" to rotate the opposite direction, as would happen in large body rotation.
Testable Prediction: Nuclei Rotate on Earth and So Prefer a Spin
This qualitative picture of movement has implications for rotation as well. A lone unified particle will not rotate - thank you Boltzmann. But a particle rotating around another mass or charge will rotate itself, since at any velocity greater than 0 the individual coils will delay crossing over the theta=pi/2 orientation but then will "hurry back" leading, the author guesses, to precession inn the direction or rotation. Nuclei are freer to rotate inside the electron shell than is the shell itself, which is constrained by surrounding shells. The author suggests the odd coil (particles have an odd number of coils) will prefer to rotate in one direction in a rotating frame, though that preference may not establish itself immediately. The author humbly suggests that a left-hand preference is not a universal phenomenon but an Earthbound (and counterclockwise rotating frame) phenomenon. Given the current universal non-acceptance of the mnp Model, there is of course no need to reprint the Lagrangian t-shirts nor change typeface size on said resources.
Sending a cobalt decay experiment into space may be difficult. Running a centrifuge at 1000 to 1500 kph perpendicular to the Earth's axis but counter to the rotation of the earth may be possible. Trapping the emitted nucleons and measuring their spin might be rather difficult.
Appendix
Why the mnp Model? Why Now?
The mnp Model's conceit is that if a simple explanation for many phenomena is available, explanations for quantum and gravitational effects might be combined.
The author's effort feels strikingly similar to Watson,Crick, and Franklin's search for the structure of DNA, given the fuzzy pictures and incomplete but suggestive information available at the time. Hints in that endeavor included measurements of relative quantities of ACGT and the doubling behavior of the gene/chromosome. Both of which suggest a binary rather than ternary model. The attempt to decide how many pairs coded amino acids was an interesting effort. Since 20 amino acids were known to be present in life, each DNA pair could have 4 values, the conclusion that triples offered 64 possibilities, which was enough to produce 20 amino acids, some more than others, with punctuation thrown in. Enough, but not too much.
In like manner, the mnp Model seems to be fairly compact and fairly parsimonious - there isn't a lot of conceptual space for more stuff, but it seems like it could encompass that which is measured and therefore known in physics. Of course, that remains to be shown. Telling is not sufficient.
The mnp Model is attempting to predict 4 forces, 3+ fields, quark behavior, and the existence of particles by finding underlying first principle(s). The reader is welcome to pick one/pick all that apply to the effort: impossible, foolish, unlikely, dangerous, stupid, audacious, arrogant, insane, brave.
The mnp Model as Conceptually Compact
The author feels that the mnp Model is "compact" in the sense that concepts, forces, and particles are closely related, that for any given binary attribute, a different concept/particle/force occupies both positions along that attribute "dimension," and that all influences are highly local with long range effects produced by propagated fields interacting.
- For example, neutrinos and the particles of light called fhotons here differ only in that fhotons have a polarity and neutrinos' basic constituent entities have a random polarity. Positive and negative charges differ only in the direction of their "polarity" called Axis in mnp. Matter gets its concept of measured time and measured distance only from its constituent coiled loops and their distortion under movement and gravitational (and other) fields.
- The difference between "light like" and "particulate" is clear, and does lead to differences in response to fields including gravity. Not all conceptual division yield symmetry on both sides. Quantization arises from one attribute of the combination of the basic attributes. Due to geometry, the division between "light like" and "Particulate" is not symmetrical, in that "classes" of neutrinos have no automatic correspondence in particles other than a propensity of certain particles to react with certain size neutrinos and perhaps neutrinos of one of the two "inclinations" Particulate.
- Within light like are "basic entities" "unaffiliated loops" "unaffiliated non-quantized loops" and 2 light like particles: fhotons and neutrinos.
- Wavelengths for moving particles, fhotons, and neutrinos are field disturbances in the random field potential of basic entities that are usually denser near matter. Electro-magnetic radiation results when fhotons, which are polarized, add polarization to the gravity wave.
- Field types are limited in number:
- gravitation (movement in and out of mediators),
- charge (movement of mediators tangent to logical spheres around the charge, polarized to match the charge) charge figments - coming in with polarity matching outgoing direction of charge polarity, going out - opposite charge goes out at angle, same charge charges straight out. So recruiting works. If like charges attracted, would segregate charge pretty quickly. Not a very interesting universe.
- magnetism (mediators moving perpendicular to the line of zero force with polarity perpendicular to travel and lined up with originating charge movement)
- Limited by what can be created by matter.
- Perhaps limited by the author's imagination of what other combinations might be possible
- Basic quarks, electrons, and positrons differ only in the proportion of 6 quantized charge loops of either charge.
- Weak interactions are reorganization of the charge structure loops of leptons and quarks and electrically neutral "basic" particles the mnp Model calls z's
- QCD is replaced by compatible quarks attempting to achieve a simpler reorganization but prevented by their "compatibility" - all other combinations resulted in electrons and positrons or neutral "z's" in the early universe, and when particles were dense, the z's were close enough to encounter each other by chance and form positron/electron pairs.
- Strong interactions are a "surface" contact phenomenon.
Attributes aka "Dimensions" fundamental to the conceptual mnp Model do not form an orthogonal space, due mostly to differences in geometry and therefore the variations possible at each level in the hierarchy of conceptual dimensions. So the diagram looks more like an outline.
- Basic entities
- free entities (3)
- potential field patterns that superimpose (to a limit)
- organized m's (2 differing by polarized or not)
- fhotons - Axis aligned
- neutrinos - Axis random (or almost random and slightly left or right)
- Quantized loops
- Free as part of the field potential or as candidates for weak interactions - considered RARE
- Matter as organized, six per quark, electron, positron, or z) 0:6 to 6:0 (7 different charge variations with different cross sections for up, anti-up, and z)
- Unquantized loop - not required by the Model but suggested as possible depending on the recruitment processes in the early universe. Unquantized or mis-sized loops are very probably free, and could act like field potential, could interfere with particles for limited times. For example, a long unquantized positive loop could turn a "free" up quark into a free negative charge loop plus a pseudo positron with a loop tail that would not be stable but be likely to break up in the presence of other free loops
The Structure of Space
The universe as truly flat may not be an accident. Maybe flatness doesn't emerge from a balance of gravitational forces, but from a different concept/mode of action of gravitational influence. The author, of course, nominates mnp as a Model for gravity emerging from interaction between mediators and matter, with (unfortunately for acceptance) a different interaction between mediators and fhotons and neutrinos.
Notes in no particular order
At above .707c, we may get width dilation due to more stuff present?"
So close to c, the m's are traveling mostly in direction of path, with axis lined up with where/how the coils were/are, though the n or p will have its charge axis lined up with travel, so the structure is held at speed by the axis of the m's rather than the axis of the n's or p's as it is in electrons at rest.
Quarks have charge axis pointing both ways. m's are attracted to the coil by Travel direction, not by Axis. The Axis of the m's attracts each other, and probably the [2015-03-16] resultant acts toward the center of the ring/coil. Except in quark triplets, which get strung out more (pun accidental . Really.) and even separated. [ Even here, could work with constituent theory, if the constituents come in sixths. ] So quark triplets WILL movement with more backward movement for short periods of time.
Questions, in no particular order
Might m's be capable of crowding? Might the limit only be on axis overlap?
Might m's be able to crowd more (those used to gluons and mesons and integral spin items being able to overlap might accept this, even though the mechanism is different.)
Possible that the coil does not have to be completely homogenous as long as it is close?
Still need to picture how the coils work and why the constant strand composition allows movement to proceed as we measure it aka as it must for the model to work/reflect reality/survive as a mental construct.
Can the mnp Model continue to the Axis getting skewed for n's or p's in moving coils/loops. The author hopes so, otherwise n's and p's would not be constant.
Roadmap of Future Blogs
Are protons moving at almost the speed of light plasma already? If slowed would they retain their identity?
Quantum Mechanics - Why the math works and what it means
Magnetism, B, and Lines of Zero Force
Philosophy - covering and evolving a minimal conceptual space: the mnp Model in Concept Space
On Neutrinos - Do hot sensors with more variation in energy detect more? Do sensors moving in parallel with the neutrinos detect more?
Revisiting the Separation Effect
Humor
Most scientists have physics envy; they would like to know as much about their specialty as physics knows about the physical world with as much certainty. And they would like their specialty to be as complicated and mathematical.
As a barbarian laying siege to physics, not at the gates or low points in the wall but at some of the highest bastions, the author can cop to physics envy. He also suggests that most physicists share his mathematics envy. Mathematicians often work in a pure realm without benefit of reality checks or physical limitations or physical intuition.
The writings on mnp are recognized as non-persuasive by the author. When the drafts become descriptive and understandable, the author will declare victory and ... Well, maybe, the profession won't be so lucky as to have him go home.
No comments:
Post a Comment