Gravity & Strong Force

[webolife]

MJV,
You say that gravitation must be a particle field, this based on I think your assumption of no action at a distance [right?] --- is this also because you can visualize no other explanation for "mass" except that it is an accumulation of particles [ie. mass = matter], your little quantum guys? Likewise, in your thinking, must your photons be accumulations of particles because of the effect they have on other objects[matter]? I'm trying to ask "yes" questions here to see if I can understand the basic premises behind your understanding of a "field"... unlike Bengt, I have no resistance to the term "field", but I need to know how you are thinking about it... also, do you think you answered my original 3 questions? Or are they unclear? Assuming there is some mutual understanding on the above thoughts, can you tell me why "c" is a part of your theory... is it due only to the assumption of no action at a distance, or is there some other reason you use it [it seems to be a hat tip to SR, but I'm not sure]?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

In answer to both posts on both threads:

First of all, yes, your questions were unclear to me, so I thought I would by-pass my ignorance of your use of vocabulary and attempt to give as full an explanation as possible. It seems that I failed; apologies.

Be careful not to confuse magic with imagination.... ....Every act of imputing fundamental causation to invisible particles is also magic... or is it imagination?

Yes, you are quite right...and yet. It is inevitable that this type of question will be asked: if I say neutrinos don't exist, how can I say that quantums do?, "Every act of imputing fundamental causation to invisible particles is also magic", etc.. It is important, in order to be scientific, that one continuously doubts ones self and others - a healthy level of scepticism. At the same time, in order to make any theoretical progress, one must proceed with the confidence of ones convictions and some level of trust in the findings of others. It is a balancing act, push your ideas forward, refute the ideas of others where you see fault. The purpose of discourse should be the opposite to that of preaching. Over of period of time ones ideas may be reinforced and refined or entirely reversed. Theories are defined by ones knowledge, logic/cognitive processes and life experiences. Am I correct and everyone else is less correct or wrong, Yes. Do I know this beyond any shadow of a doubt, No.

You cannot envision action at a distance, even though you surely recognize that "instantaneous" action is the only way to make the observations [of eg. gravitation and light] work?

Not sure what you're saying here? Would you please re-phrase.

You say that gravitation must be a particle field, this based on I think your assumption of no action at a distance [right?] -

Yes

is this also because you can visualize no other explanation for "mass" except that it is an accumulation of particles [ie. mass = matter], your little quantum guys?
Certainly, I find it easier to visualise matter particles. There is also the need to describe and define the whole picture - gravity,"light", EM. Other theories tend to be divergent in the causality of effects. A quantum field explains everything with consistency and simplicity.

Likewise, in your thinking, must your photons be accumulations of particles because of the effect they have on other objects[matter]?

A theory of photons, or light, is required to satisfy a whole of host of properties. One of those being Planck's constant, another being a quantised nature, a seemingly "constant" speed. Waves in a luminiferous aether strikes me as physically unworkable on astronomical scales and also leaves no room for gravity and magnetism.

can you tell me why "c" is a part of your theory... is it due only to the assumption of no action at a distance, or is there some other reason you use it [it seems to be a hat tip to SR, but I'm not sure]?

To a large extent this comes under the "trust the findings of others" banner. It appears that light does always travel at the same speed: c. (As far as I am concerned I would be happy with c + or - a negligible variance.) If this is true then there must a reason - it seems to me that it makes most sense if that reason comes from the emission of the photons. If light travels at a constant speed, independent of the speed of the source, then electron spin perfectly solves what was previously put forward as counter-intuitive; this is a solution to that physical conundrum. It is also put forward that light always travels at c relative to all frames of reference - I consider this to be unproven nonsense.



I'm looking for areas where I agree with your unified view of the universe but are just semantically different...

[Bengt Nyman]

- they just go where the quantum wind blows them

I have made a serious effort to get your quantums to explain gravity. I am sad to say that I have failed. I like the simplicity of the idea. But as you said yourself, the idea is 300 years old and has yet failed to move us forward.
I am also bothered by the fact that my own dipole model explains and quantifies gravity and strong force in a satisfying way, but fails to explain magnetism. In addition, I did start perceiving little energy primes in space. After all, energy and materia has to start somewhere and the building blocks are likely to be very small; smaller than the smallest subatomic energy fragment ever observed, and small enough to be the building block of a single wavelength of the smallest EM photon ever observed.
I am intrigued by your statement that there can be no action at a distance.
I don’t need energy primes or quantums to explain gravity if I am allowed action at a distance. If not, I need a mediator between my dipoles.
I am interested in what it could do to facilitate magnetism.
Let’s look at the simple case of two parallel conductors carrying electrical currents in the same direction. We know by observation that the two conductors attract each other. Even rings of classical circular magnetic fields do a poor job of explaining why the two conductors attract each other and do nothing to explain the underlying mechanism.
I have failed to explain magnetism as a result of dipole formation alone.
I have just also failed to explain magnetism as caused by dipoles and mediated by quantums.
So let’s give quantums alone a chance and see what they can do on their own.
The two electrical conductors above are columns of empty space except for a lattice of atomic nuclei with electrons orbiting around them. The electric currents through these conducting columns amount to electron winds blowing through the conductors. The quantums are everywhere and taken along for the ride by the electron wind. We now have a quantum wind blowing in and along both conductors. Just like in flows of gases and liquids an organization and equalization of the quantum flows between the conductors results in a reduction of quantum collisions, which locally lowers the partial pressure.
The lowered quantum partial pressure between the conductors causes the conductors to be pushed together.
Let us reverse the current in one of the conductors. We now have quantum winds blowing in opposite directions causing increased collisions and a locally increased quantum partial pressure between the conductors pushing them apart.

How about that Michael ?

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

OK, I'll have a think, but could you be more precise about your misgivings with particle field gravity. It seems to me to work perfectly and the idea was only really rejected because of misplaced concerns regarding thermodynamics. Gravity is the easy part.

Michael

[webolife]

I have to go with Bengt on the question of action at a distance... if your quanta are in fact discrete particles, as the word quantum suggests, at some scale there must be action at a distance, a field property operating between particles. Only if they are infinitesmal could this be otherwise, yet you seem to be content with a "Panck distance".
Now I know that the so-called Planck distance [a case for which you are "trusting others" I realize] is small to the very extreme, yet it is finite and some action across it must be assumed. Once this is seen, what prevents the logical connection of objects at higher scales, this connection being observed in the experience of both light and gravity, as well as electricity and magnetism, all of which are invisible/transparent and "energetic", or actions at/across a distance, and while all of these are able to move discrete particles, yet they defy the actual observation of being composed of such "quanta". They are all fields which act upon matter, and cause effects such as mass and charge, and various manifestations of spin, rotation, revolution... When you assume no action at a distance, you are left only with the possibility of an aether, either a material one like your quantum field made of fractally infinitesmal stuff, or perhaps an immaterial one built on geometrical relationships. Whichever is chosen, assumptions [like some you refer to as "magical"] must be made to explain that which is inevitably invisible/undetectable.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Now it's getting really interesting.

at some scale there must be action at a distance,

Either I am ignorant of some well known fact(s) or I don't follow your reasoning - would you explain please.

yet it is finite and some action across it must be assumed.

nope, whoosh, please explain

Once this is seen, what prevents the logical connection of objects at higher scales

Can you please re-phrase all of the above using shorter words

[Bengt Nyman]

Bengt,
Gravity is the easy part

Hi Michael,
I must have missed when that riddle was solved. The Einsteinian circular argument attempting to explain gravity we can all respectfully ignore. The Standard Model is honest about the fact that it lacks an explanation for gravity.
What generally accepted model of gravity are you referring to.
P.S. I thought you would be delighted when I used your hypothesis to explain the most difficult of them all; magnetism.

[jjohnson]

Hi, Bengt,
The analogy of the Bernoulli effect between two conductors is a novel idea. I have not seen experiments that show that opposing airflows cause higher pressure due to turbulence between them, and would like to know if there are any links to this geometry and the resultant motions of the central currents away from each other.

My other difficulty (as I have many about practically everything ) is thinking about these quanta.

• Do quanta move at c ?
  Do they move in straight lines as Newton would have for ponderous particles and objects?
  Can they really collide and become net turbulent? Are their collisions thought to be completely elastic?
  Can they, or how is it that they, when they are field aligned (with the axis of the current conductors, that is) with very little transverse velocity components, decrease pressure exerted upon the "empty column of atoms or particles that constitute the conductors?

Interesting stuff.

Jim

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi, Bengt,
1. Do quanta move at c ?
2. Do they move in straight lines as Newton would have for ponderous particles and objects?
3. Can they really collide and become net turbulent? Are their collisions thought to be completely elastic?
4. Can they, or how is it that they, when they are field aligned (with the axis of the current conductors, that is) with very little transverse velocity components, decrease pressure exerted upon the "empty column of atoms or particles that constitute the conductors?
Jim

Hi Jim. Good to hear from you.
It's probably a mistake by me to go along with the term quantum considering the existing definition:
Wikipedia: "Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics providing a mathematical description of the wave–particle duality of matter and energy."

I am concerned with something much smaller and more general; the smallest common energy denominator that cooperates to build EM radiation, photons, electrons, quarks and everything else in our universe. It is certainly not a particle and it does not consist of a quantum or a quantity of anything. I am looking for the very prime of all primes; the singulum of which everything else is composed. A si.
Here is another reason why the hypothesis about si does not belong in the world of quantum mechanics or quantum field theory:
Wikipedia: "In quantum field theory, the forces between particles are mediated by other particles. The electromagnetic force between two electrons is caused by an exchange of photons. Intermediate vector bosons mediate the weak force and gluons mediate the strong force. There is currently no complete quantum theory of the remaining fundamental force, gravity, but many of the proposed theories postulate the existence of a graviton particle that mediates it."

I maintain that the designer particles mentioned above, including a possible Higgs particle, are merely place holders for yet unexplained subatomic functionalities caused by the intricate effects of unknown energy theconstellations resulting from cooperating arrangements of myriads of sii.
With that in mind I will attempt to answer your questions about si.
1. I do not think so. Sii are everywhere. Sii are the essence of what we think of as vacuum.
2. I do not think so. Without gravitational or inertial mass sii go where they want following any si winds.
3. I do not think of it as collide, but I think we can talk in terms of varying degrees of si density.
4. A lowered si density immediately causes a si wind which when hitting larger constellations of sii, such as particles, manifests itself as a force.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

I must confess that when I first read your suggestion my mind was elsewhere. I've now had a chance to absorb and think.

In my mind the possibility that "pieces" of matter can attract each other by some intrinsic property is absurd beyond contemplation. So, we must surely conclude that the attraction of the two conductors is caused by a force that pushes them together. So an imbalance of forces allows for the appearance of attraction, and an imbalance of forces results in repulsion. However, from this point on we may not agree. My first thought is that a slow drift of electrons cannot possibly account for electric current and would be hard pushed to qualify as an "electron wind".
For now I think we are destined to disagree, but I am nevertheless interested in your ideas.

I am intrigued by your si or should that be sii or is sii the plural of si.

I am looking for the very prime of all primes; the singulum of which everything else is composed. A si.

I have called this a quantum particle. How does a si justify it's existence without being a physical particle with mass and dimension?. I mean no argumental tone, I am genuinely interested in how your perception of fundamental reality differs from mine.

Also,

I have made a serious effort to get your quantums to explain gravity. I am sad to say that I have failed.

Would be so kind as to clarify your objections. Is it problems with particle field gravity in general, or something more specific to my interpretation?. There is certainly room for adjustment in my theory, but feedback of other people's perceived inadequacies would help identify my errors.

[webolife]

Just to make sure I'm listening.... Bengt's sii are the same as Michael's quanta/quantums?
So Michael, where does your force come from if not intrinsic and not from the field, and if it is from your quantum field, is it not intrinsic to the quanta, and if so, how is this essentially different your other "intrinsic" that you think is absurd? I am not necessarily arguing for intrinsic as you are suggesting it, but just trying to understand what you're saying. At what point are your quanta stuck together? At the Planck distance? Closer together than that? Among my longest words are connection, distance, logical and assumed... which would you like shorter?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Bengt's sii are the same as Michael's quanta/quantums?

That is my assumption/presumption, but awaiting response from Bengt.

Yeh, I answered this in the other gravity thread:

The prime mover is "creation". From there on in its all conservation of momentum - the field quantum particle is moving at c, it strikes an electron, the electron's angular momentum is increased, the electron re-emits the charge quantum at c, the charge quantum merges back into field returning to its field quantum status. All matter and momentum is conserved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a problem there.

The problem is in the first sentence: "creation". Gods/aliens, explosive creation events, "we are not privileged to know".
Once you accept that you will never know how it started (or at least, it's extremely unlikely), then keeping the thing going is not a problem.

I am a bit dubious about the Planck length - but that said if you substitute G-naught for G-a, you get 6.9^-27m, which is closer to my gut feel for a quantum radius, although it's more like guess work than a real hypothesis.

At what point are your quanta stuck together? At the Planck distance? Closer together than that? Among my longest words are connection, , and distance,

The quanta/quantum particles/quantums are never stuck together. They are moving around at c. On the rare occasion that they collide, I make the assumption that the collision is totally elastic (two identical particles moving at identical speeds).

I am starting to wonder if anyone has understood the concept that I am trying to describe. I must assume then that is a failure on my part.

Imagine a transparent sphere, put some peas or marbles or ball bearings in the sphere and do your very best to shake the sphere so that the balls inside move with a completely random pattern. Now visualise that the sphere is the whole, presumable infinite, universe, and that the balls inside the sphere are quantum particles. On average the quantum particles are hundreds of thousands of diameters apart (the diameters of the quantum particles) , so quantum particle collisions are rare within any given volume of space.

Electrons are 1x10^15 times more dense than the field, protons are 8x10^19 more times dense than the field. Planck's constant is the kinetic energy of a quantum particle, so is that what you mean by "the logical connection of objects at higher scales" ?.

yet they defy the actual observation of being composed of such "quanta".

When you say "such" quanta, do you mean that analysis of force fields has so far failed to provide any evidence of an underlying quantum basis?.

And yes, I admit, I am taking some risk and inviting accusations of hypocrisy by name calling other imaginings to be magic. But, I am sticking to my postulates of no action at a distance, and no effect without cause. In order to do this, I must invent the quantum field and electron&proton spin. But my quantums relate back to h, and my field density is Alpha.

[webolife]

Thank you for your admissions. The prime cause, physically speaking, is the centropic universal action you described somewhat inexactly as a glass sphere universe. I simply refer to it as the "holding force". The net vector in all of that "shaken" [from the creation] state is toward the center of the universe, but at any locale in the universe it would appear to come from anywhere, but be directed toward the centroid of a local object, more of course toward larger objects than toward small... but thinking a little out of the box, perhaps the cause of the larger objects is the greater density of vectors in that location, ie. the field produces the matter, not matter producing the field. Causation is regarded as extrinsic to matter in this view, but is not removed from the physics by any means.

[Bengt Nyman]

Bengt,
How does a si justify it's existence without being a physical particle with mass and dimension ?

The answer lies in E=mc^2.
Your quantum is a particle with mass and dimension.
All particles and all masses can be disassembled into massless, dimensionless energy; E=mc^2.
EM radiation is a form of massless energy.
I claim that EM radiation is a constellation of cooperating sii.
Sii is the plural form of si.
Sii are what is left when for example EM radiation hits a wall and the cooperating constellation of sii disintegrates into its smallest energy constituent si.
Si added to a brick wall makes the wall warmer.
Si alone is the smallest form of massless, dimensionless energy.
Singular sii live undetected in vacuum.

It takes myriads of cooperating sii to form a single wavelength of EM radiation or EM photon.
It takes many cooperating constellations of EM photons to form a physical particle with mass and dimension.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

Your universal view differs somewhat to my own. Let me try to describe my universe:

I entirely disagree with Einstein's conservation of momentum fudge that is E=mc^2. My quantum is a piece of matter, it is immutable, uncrushable, undestroyable. It is solid and does not consist of any smaller pieces. It is "the very prime of all primes; the singulum of which everything else is composed". Energy is not a massless, dimensionless wisp. Energy is the kinetic energy of a quantum particle and is a calculated quantity, not a separate substance in its own right. The kinetic energy of a quantum particle is Planck's constant and as such represents the smallest unit of "energy" in the universe.

You see, my universe is quite literally real and physical at all levels of scale. What we term the vacuum of empty space, is flat Euclidean nothingness teaming with quantum particles of matter moving at c. In my universe there cannot be action at a distance, all transfer of momentum and forces are caused by physical collision. The only placeholder is the unexplainable fact of existence. Once the awkward ignorance of "creation" is dismissed as an unknowable irrelevance, then all matter and momentum is conserved.

Webolife,
The glass sphere with marbles analogy was simply a visualisation of the motion of the quantum particles. All the quantums were given the speed of c at the moment of universal creation, then some electrons and protons were thrown in to make it interesting. I make the assumption that the "creation event(s)" took place less than an infinity of time ago, but so long ago that to all intents and purposes the universe can be considered to be infinitely old. One must presume that our universe must be finite within the context of infinity, but that its size is so large (10 to the power of "a big number" light-years) that to all intents and purposes it can be considered to be infinitely large. Quantum particles are distributed evenly throughout the entire cosmos. When you place electrons, protons and atoms in the quantum "field" it produces the effect of gravity, electrons and protons spin, so that the "gravity quantums" are fired back act as charge.
I would question as to whether it would be possible now or at any time in the future or detect or deduce the size of a quantum particle. I am making the assumption that our ability to resolve smaller and smaller scales of size is limited, although Planck was a clever bloke, so I am not entirely dismissing your concerns. The statement that the observation of force fields "defy the actual observation of being composed of such quanta" could be amended to include the words "so far".