Positive and Negative

[seasmith]

Michaelv,

Hence the question mark at the end of my blurb.

There remains however, this pesky and persistent duality of "electrons and holes" (which seems to work very well for the semi-conductor device designers), to be explained with a unified theory.

s

[Michael V]

seasmith,

... pesky ...

You have read my mind again.

Michael

[seasmith]

Bright and Dark • Helices of Light

Laser beams can be made to form bright and dark intensity helices of light. Such helices have a pitch length on the order of a wavelength and may have applications in lithography and the manipulation of particles through optical forces. The formation of bright helices is more strongly constrained by optical resolution limits than that of dark helices, corresponding scaling laws are derived and ...

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstra ... 0-13-14371

Laser beams can be made to form dark as well as bright intensity helices, or corkscrews of light. In a paper shortly to appear in Optics Express, Dr Ole Steuernagel, at the University of Hertfordshire's Science and Technology Research Institute, has now shown that forming dark helices can have considerable advantages over employing their commonly considered bright cousins.

Dark helices
Dark helices are shaped like their bright helix counterparts but they are helically-shaped threads of darkness embedded in a background of bright light. And unlike bright helices, dark helices are not resolution limited and provide a better intensity contrast than bright ones. In addition, they can be generated one-by-one but, more importantly, they can also be arranged in a massively parallel fashion on a tight grid.

http://www.herts.ac.uk/news-and-events/ ... future.cfm

The dark helices could be most beneficial in a quantum-transport setting because their waveguides interact less with trapped particles than their bright counterparts. Because of this, dark helices are more suitable for sensitive quantum systems because they do less damage.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=51135


~
Still digging for more of the actual known physics, but K. Meyl's dual vortexes come to mind....


http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratu ... ponder.pdf

[sjw40364]

I will have to agree with michaelv, I see evidence of charges of different strengths (i.e. magnitude), but not necessarily charges of different polarity. As for charges attracted or repelled from a different polarity, is it really a different polarity or is one simply a greater strength than another? After all, if the Earth is enclosed in a double layer, as are all objects in space, then all matter within the double layer is basically the same, just some with a slightly higher charge than others. This difference in strength of charge is what I believe to be mistaken as positive, negative or neutral. If one charge is stronger, we will call it positive and one is weaker, we will call it negative, then it is only reasonable that the weaker charge would be attracted to the stronger charge. Charges of the same strength we will call neutral. Electron alignment can also play a part in whether a charge is attracted or repelled. Just as in a magnet the north pole is always stronger than the south pole, not due to positive or negative charges but electron alignment. A magnet has very little overall charge, yet will repel or attract another magnet depending on their orientation, and both poles will attract non-magnetized metals. So do positive and negative charges repel or attract as we decide they need to, or is it simply strength of charge and electron alignment?

[seasmith]

jw40364 » ,

Long time no hear from you, .
Sounds like you've slid out of neutral and in to the dark side ?

for every front a back, every in an out, every on an off, every scission a center "enclosed in a double layer" -sjw

s

[Sparky]

sjw,

all matter within the double layer is basically the same, just some with a slightly higher charge than others.

errr, i thought that a double layer was defined by areas of different charges.....If we knew what "charge" was, it would be easier to understand.

Your suggestion that positive and negative are the same, but of different intensities would be somewhat valid if we defined these by comparison, but we do not. Each is an arbitrary designation and is defined by comparison to as neutral an environment as we can generate. They are not compared to one another. Detectors will react
the opposite to negative as they will to positive.

[Plasmatic]

Michael V, I implore you to reconsider the premise that "nothingness" is an existent. There can be no nothing. If it exists,it is someTHING. Your committing to a contradiction.

[Plasmatic]

"tetrahedron" aether comment:

Michael Armstrong and I were discussing this today. Can one not conceive of deformable balls compressed to touch at all points on its surface to others of same. Or at least have smaller deformable balls contacting the would be empty surface?

Sorry If too peripheral to the OP.

[Michael V]

Plasmatic,

Don't understand what you're getting at with "deformable balls" (ooh, er, missus).

Regarding "nothingness", there may be some curious and esoteric philosophies that propose a reality where motion exists only as an illusion. However, I am unwilling to accept such fictitious oddities as real and instead I insist upon motion as real, whether you choose it to be absolute or relative.

"From acceptance of motion as real, there is no logical escape from that which must follow. To allow motion we must also embrace the concept of separation. These ideas are mutually proved and undeniable. With spatial separation comes two further concepts that are equally proved and equally undeniable: empty space and discrete “particles” of material substance. In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert, that is empty space, the other is interactive, that is particles of material substance. The interactive material substance may be further split into two broad categories: one is the ponderable matter that are electrons and protons and that which their interaction form; the other is aethereal particles that are responsible for producing and mediating the interactions between electrons and protons. With motion included, all theories and models must comply with the concept of particles separated by completely empty space. There is no philosophical or logical avoidance to this regime, as without the reality of motion, all other considerations become meaningless and invalid."

Whether from this we can say that "nothingness" is an "existent" or whether it might be more accurate to say that it is "a lack of existent", is basically only a semantic argument. However, what is absolutely CERTAIN is that most of the universe is absolutely completely unoccupied empty space devoid of any matter or aethereal substance whatsoever.

If are able to define a worthwhile counter-argument I would be very pleased to read it.

Michael

[sjw40364]

errr, i thought that a double layer was defined by areas of different charges.....If we knew what "charge" was, it would be easier to understand.

Your suggestion that positive and negative are the same, but of different intensities would be somewhat valid if we defined these by comparison, but we do not. Each is an arbitrary designation and is defined by comparison to as neutral an environment as we can generate. They are not compared to one another. Detectors will react
the opposite to negative as they will to positive.

Double layers are defined by areas of differing charge, but then would that not by definition mean that everything on Earth within its DL was of the same charge (negative or positive) if we wish to define by positive or negative charge? If the DL is the line of seperation, then everything within must be all negative or all positive by definition. Since we claim to measure both negative and positive charges on earth, that definition cannot be wholy correct. This is why I subscribe to charges of differing strength. All within the DL are of similar magnitude, with only slight variation within the atomic structures.

I think of an electron as a cluster of smaller particles, similar to a globular cluster, I do not believe an electron is a single particle, but a conglomerate of billions completely surrounding the nucleus. Once they begin to align they take on spiral galaxy shape, or planetary ring shape, and as all galaxies in this configuration do they emit sychronton radiation from the lobes or galactic poles, or in the case of electrons perhaps photons. If someone is aware of any globular clusters emiting such in distinct jets, please let me know so I can revise my idea.

It would help if we understood what charge was, other than the somewhat lacking definition we have currently. I am as unsatisfied with it as I am with the explanation of how vision works. Current theory would have a photon somehow capturing both surface texture and color upon contact and transfering that image to my eye. This from a particle that has neither mass nor charge. yet this same photon can reflect from a surface, reflect from a mirror, and yet it is the first object it contacted that makes it to my eye, not the captured image of the mirror's substrate. Do photons only capture the information from the first contacted surface, silly putty in action?

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatic,

Don't understand what you're getting at with "deformable balls" (ooh, er, missus).

Regarding "nothingness", there may be some curious and esoteric philosophies that propose a reality where motion exists only as an illusion. However, I am unwilling to accept such fictitious oddities as real and instead I insist upon motion as real, whether you choose it to be absolute or relative.

"From acceptance of motion as real, there is no logical escape from that which must follow. To allow motion we must also embrace the concept of separation. These ideas are mutually proved and undeniable. With spatial separation comes two further concepts that are equally proved and equally undeniable: empty space and discrete “particles” of material substance. In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert, that is empty space, the other is interactive, that is particles of material substance. The interactive material substance may be further split into two broad categories: one is the ponderable matter that are electrons and protons and that which their interaction form; the other is aethereal particles that are responsible for producing and mediating the interactions between electrons and protons. With motion included, all theories and models must comply with the concept of particles separated by completely empty space. There is no philosophical or logical avoidance to this regime, as without the reality of motion, all other considerations become meaningless and invalid."

Whether from this we can say that "nothingness" is an "existent" or whether it might be more accurate to say that it is "a lack of existent", is basically only a semantic argument. However, what is absolutely CERTAIN is that most of the universe is absolutely completely unoccupied empty space devoid of any matter or aethereal substance whatsoever.

If are able to define a worthwhile counter-argument I would be very pleased to read it.

Michael

Hi Michael, It does not follow from the axiomatic nature of multiplicity/boundedness that the intervening "space" be "nothing".How does it follow that between entities there cant be a fluid sea of permeable existents while still maintaining multiplicity/boundedness of particulars? That nothing cant be follows itself from the axiom of existence. What is between all entities(bounded particulars) exists. Nothing is the concept that refers to the absence of an entity in a given context where necessarily other entities are present.

The universe is a full plenum.

Im curious as to what exactly you mean by "semantic argument". Mostly folks mean that someone is nit picking simply over what word one uses to describe the same referents. In this case Im not simply quarelling with your choice of auditory visual symbol (word)but the relation of the concepts your employing themselves.

[sjw40364]

To allow motion we must also embrace the concept of separation.

And yet a fish swimming in an ocean is moving, yet it does not move through nothingness, or to it is the water nothing and it appears to be moving through emptyness?

[Sparky]

most of the universe is absolutely completely unoccupied empty space devoid of any matter or aethereal substance whatsoever.

there is no empty space! What used to be 'empty space" , sucked in matter of various types, because of it's overall anti-matter charge and became a fabric of matter and time, "pentaquarks plus" particles, melded to supersymmetric sphaleron saddle points , which now reacts as a leptogenesis megaregion . There may be areas of empty space, but they are quickly sucking and filling, as they are wont to do....







ireallydonno...

[Michael V]

Plasmatic,

.....a fluid sea of permeable existents.....

This is exactly defined as particles separated by empty space. I understand the appeal of visualising a continuous aethereal fluid, but it is a vital necessity of a fluid of any description that it be particles separated by empty space. An atomic fluid is 99.9999....% empty space, an aethereal fluid will be no different.

The full universe is totally and utterly solid in the ultimate and absolute meaning of that concept, with no chance or hint of motion at any level. You can build model upon model with layer upon layer of aethereal field of finer and finer grained particles, but it will be to no avail. To retain a viable property of motion a vast majority of empty space in required.

Nothing is the concept that refers to the absence of an entity in a given context where necessarily other entities are present.

If anything, "Nothing is the concept" that defines Something. As for other entities being "necessarily" present, there is no necessity in any way. The simple acceptance of multiple entities and boundaries, is in itself further demonstration of the "necessity" of separation.


Michael

PS I was saying that "nothingness" need not be defined as an "existent" unless it is agreed upon and convenient to do so, since "lack of existent" achieves the same by another semantic route.

[Plasmatic]

Michael said:

If anything, "Nothing is the concept" that defines Something. As for other entities being "necessarily" present, there is no necessity in any way. The simple acceptance of multiple entities and boundaries, is in itself further demonstration of the "necessity" of separation.

But seperation of what from what is at issue.

This is exactly defined as particles separated by empty space. I understand the appeal of visualising a continuous aethereal fluid, but it is a vital necessity of a fluid of any description that it be particles separated by empty space. An atomic fluid is 99.9999....% empty space, an aethereal fluid will be no different.

Why can't deformable balls compress to touch at all surfaces to others of same? Or at least tetrahedrons.

Remind me how one determines perceptually that fluids have space in them please.