Certain explanations and proofs work better in the general Constituent Model, for example the movement of particles and the energy/mass that must be added to effect movement. Certain details and explanations currently work better in the mnp Model, such as the origin of h and ℏ. Herein, a sketch of the state of that generalization. Most of this sketch was written at the end of 2018.
Frames
Most theorists in Special and General Relativity see no way the reference frame or the lab can change, no way a rotating frame itself can change, so all relativity must be apparent. The Constituent and mnp Models indicate that the lab DOES change, that particles DO change when they move, that time DOES dilate on movement. Ponder that while the author considers the verb in that sentence. The Models do posit, do not yet show or prove, and are far too dependent on the reality of Lorentz transformation to merely hint. The Constituent Model depends on the Lorentz transformations being real, and is an absolute frame system, as is the mnp Model. While not apologizing, the author IS a bit bashful and sometimes quiet about that necessity.
Natural Philosophy
The author thinks primarily in terms of the specific Constituent Model, the mnp Model. The advantages of the Constituent Model is that some proofs and developments are easier, for example, the validation of relativistic mass and momentum. These developments apply directly to the mnp Model as a specific type of Constituent Model. At other times, ideas such as the meaning/explanation for h and ℏ, seem to emerge more easily from the mnp Model. Applying specific thoughts to the general Constituent Model is at times much more challenging. So in the traditions of math and physics, the easier course will be chosen. Comment regarding mathematics: things are usually hard. When mathematicians find something dropping out, making things easier, they get really excited.
Constituent Model Principles
A Constituent Model posits that everything that makes up everything travels at c. The author suggests that the constituent(s) have ways of interacting with constituent(s) that are not classical or expected in any sense. For example, constituents probably do not occupy space, do not bounce off each other, and may not even repel each other. That seems to work well in the specific Constituent Model mnp.
The mnp Model posits that two basic entities at about the same point and traveling in about the same direction, only one will receive influence from nearby entities. If instead the limitation is seen as a maximum interaction over an area or volume (in addition to maximum influence given and influence received), the limitation works in a Constituent Model as well. Or one could posit that constituents have a maximum density. A maximum density or maximum influence over volume runs the risk of seeming like an ether based model, which the author would like to avoid for now in favor of a more pure entity or constituent based model.
Speculations Further Afield
If the effect that leads to gravity, called Travel in the mnp Model, is also passed transverse to the direction of travel of all basic entities, then gravity can remain consistent to it's a sub 0 limit. This might also be a benefit in picturing electrostatic fields and in picturing the surface of nucleons, with their smaller quarks inside actively trying to pull each other apart. But for the discussion of measuring time in the previous post on Time Dilation, those hints of future developments are not needed.
There may well be successful Constituent Models more general than the author's current theorizing, which is based on experience with a specific developing and changing Model, the mnp Model. (or is the gerund properly modeling when the creation is still light-years from a Theory.) At present, the author's effort is show the success of a Constituent Model. This effort may or may not be closely tied to the mnp Model. Later, further generalization may be possible. At present, picturing why an electrostatic field attracts opposites is explained in the mnp Model, based on the coiled structure of charge, but is NOT explained in a generalized Constituent Model.
A "success" can be claimed, for example, in gravitational fields which reasonably generalize from mnp's picture of basic entities streaming away and toward masses, with the attraction being to move parallel or anti-parallel. If the constituent gravitons or gravitational fields travel at c and attract each other to be more parallel and the gravitons attract transverse to their motion (also at c) to travel in their direction and have a limit on how far their attraction can extend based on how "much" constituent there is in a volume or an expanding plane, then the Constituent Model has a similar property to the mnp Model of having a limit beyond which gravity becomes non-uniform, preferring to be attracted to gravitational fields and masses already present or already "known." So for gravity, mnp's Travel attraction and distance might become a parallel or anti-parallel attraction of constituents based on an amount of constituent in a volume and distance to possibly affected constituents. This success is actually bi-directional - suggesting that mnp's Travel direction attraction is transmitted laterally in a cone expanding at c was partially motivated by interest in improving the Constituent Model as well as by recognition of the benefits of seeing gravitation as (up to its limits) approaching radial uniformity.
Apparently, fields may be trying to reach a steady state, to reach equilibrium, but are being perturbed by particles, neutrinos, and fhotons. A fhoton as seen as being a polarized bundle of energy that creates electromagnetic waves, while a neutrino creates analogous "gravity" waves without polarization.
The generalization of the mnp Model to a Constituent Model is a work in progress, as is the mnp Model itself.
Humor
In a comic strip from the 50's and 60's, Mandrake the Magician would wave his hands hypnotically whenever he got into difficulties. Well, I hope to avoid THAT. At times, I recognize that I am waving my hands. Hopefully, not hypnotically.
No comments:
Post a Comment