Micro bang theory (Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points)
- Thread starter TheBox
- Start date
mmm4444bot
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 10,962
My apologies .
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
Your question is not specific enough. Are you trying to find some kind of charge density?
-Dan
I'm trying to explain a positive or a negative point charge ''popping into and out of existence'' by temporal transition , from a high energy state point to lower energy state surrounding points .
Energy magnitude and density of the point charge being ''fragmented'' / divided by the surrounding real coordinate space which is a lesser energy state . Should I post the section of my theory that the maths question is relative to ?
Last edited:
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
Your first statement sounds like you are talking about a vacuum fluctuation but the comment about energy states is irrelevant to this phenomenon. And I have no clue what you mean by "fragmented." I guess you are going to have to write this out. I can't help if I don't know what you are talking about.
-Dan
I'm trying to produce / check my maths for this :
2. Micro bang theory (Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points).
We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) to form at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested is seemingly imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly occurred.
The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best ''guess'' of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, proposing opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .
The Universe inside and out considers the conditions of a very high-density and high-temperature state , firstly recognising and proposing , that for any form of energy to exist or any event to take place , that energy or event would with a certainty need a pre-existing spatial volume to exist in or occur in . Thus concluding a pre-existing absolute space as explained prior in section 1 .
The Universe inside and out now explores the physics involved in the process and what would happen to a manifested point charge , that manifested at any given point of real coordinate space. In conceptual thought of a point charge namely zero point energy , it would be seemingly apparent that the surrounding spatial points of real coordinate space would have a lesser magnitude of energy and a lesser dense state than the higher density , higher energy state of the point charge .
In consideration of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions , a higher energy state points energy , traverses to lower energy state points . In the second law of thermodynamics ,heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature. Too assume a point charge does not function the same way would seem unrealistic ! Proposing that a manifested point charge undergoes a temporal transition , changing from one state or condition to another over a period of time , would seem realistic and an evidential proposal based on thermal dynamics and spectral emissions .
One could suggest that the point charge simply self annihilates by dispersing into space , by the natural self drive mechanism of higher energy temporal transition to lower energy state points . This would seem a ''true'' assumption and for our understanding the Universe inside and out proposes and requests you accept the self annihilation to be namely , The Micro bang process .
It is propositioned to you , that from the instant of manifestation of the point charge , the charge energy is instantly attracted to all of the surrounding real coordinate space of lesser energy , in an isotropic manner . This event being a conditional and natural transitional state , causality of self annihilation . It is also propositioned to you that the speed of this temporal transition process is the constant of c . The speed of light being a causality of the temporal transition of energy to a lower state energy .
It's difficult to express the temporal transition of energy changing from one state or condition to another mathematically in terms of units and values. The infinitive of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant .
To gain mutual understanding the Universe Inside and Out requests that you'll preliminary accept the value R^n to represent a n-dimensional , unspecified volume of real coordinate space .
Additionally for the purpose of the Micro Bang process , it is requested the preliminary acceptance of -Q to represent a negative charged mono-pole (traditionally an electron charge) and +Q to represent a positive charged mono-pole (traditionally a Proton charge).
In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang process expresses :
1) (-Q / R^n)/t = 0
A negative point charge divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate , lesser energy space .
2) (+Q / R^n)/t = 0
A positive point charge divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate , lesser energy space .
Both the negative point charge and positive point charge , diminishing out of existence to 0 magnitude and 0 density .
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow but I can make a few preliminary comments.
1) Leave the zero point energy alone. It cannot interact with anything in the Universe and probably doesn't exist anyway. As far as I know it is an artifact of us not knowing how to do some calculations properly.
2) Most of what you are trying to talk about is better done using Quantum Mechanics.
-Dan
1) Leave the zero point energy alone. It cannot interact with anything in the Universe and probably doesn't exist anyway. As far as I know it is an artifact of us not knowing how to do some calculations properly.
2) Most of what you are trying to talk about is better done using Quantum Mechanics.
-Dan
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
Okay, I've got a better handle on this now. First, I would like to re-iterate that what you need to be talking about is Quantum Mechanics. The whole idea of a particle "dispersing" into a small volume just doesn't happen. According to the Standard Model all elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, photons, etc.) are point particles without any "structure." That is to say, they aren't made from anything else. And, as I mentioned before, the zero point energy does not interact in any way with, well, anything. If an electron (or whatever) were to disperse it would no longer be an electron.
The idea that an electron has to take up some kind of space/volume is incorrect. It is a point particle and thus does not take up any space. Now that does seem rather unrealistic but has so far been confirmed by all experiments. On a really small scale do point particles not take up any volume? This is an unanswered question and some theories, such as String Theory, do address this issue.
I should point out that empty space is not really empty. Particle fields pervade the Universe. On the quantum level the fields act as simple harmonic oscillators. In fact, this is the origin of the zero point energy as quantum sho's have a non-zero energy ground state. Clearly there is something wrong with this picture as it predicts a vacuum with an infinite energy as it's ground state but the Math otherwise works out.
That's about as deep as I'm going to go with this. Your article has some basic flaws associated with an (apparent) lack of information about how QM would explain/negate your arguments. Feel free to ask about a topic but I'm not going to discuss your article as a whole in detail.
-Dan
The idea that an electron has to take up some kind of space/volume is incorrect. It is a point particle and thus does not take up any space. Now that does seem rather unrealistic but has so far been confirmed by all experiments. On a really small scale do point particles not take up any volume? This is an unanswered question and some theories, such as String Theory, do address this issue.
I should point out that empty space is not really empty. Particle fields pervade the Universe. On the quantum level the fields act as simple harmonic oscillators. In fact, this is the origin of the zero point energy as quantum sho's have a non-zero energy ground state. Clearly there is something wrong with this picture as it predicts a vacuum with an infinite energy as it's ground state but the Math otherwise works out.
That's about as deep as I'm going to go with this. Your article has some basic flaws associated with an (apparent) lack of information about how QM would explain/negate your arguments. Feel free to ask about a topic but I'm not going to discuss your article as a whole in detail.
-Dan
Otis
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,592
You could have just said , you don't know how to divide something by an infinite space !
Q / F<E = Q / R^n = 0
Where Q is charge , F is force and R^n is an unspecified volume of real coordinate space
What is wrong with that ?
Point charge / unspecified volume of real coordinate space by the lesser energy force of the space .
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
You must mean "You could have just said , you don't know how to divide something by an infinite space !" is really dividing something by an "infinitesimal space." That's what you are talking about when you are commenting on the initial volume of your micro-Big Bang. And yes, I do. A useful version is called a "Dirac delta function."
If you really do want to talk about an infinite space then you need to change your notation. (You do anyway, as a matter of fact.) [math]Q / \mathbb{R}^n[/math] is not a valid construction. What you want to write is [math]Q / V[/math] where V is infinite. [math]\mathbb{R} ^n[/math] means roughly an n dimensional copy of Euclidean space. You want n = 3 not n goes to infinity.
Your ideas are interesting but need much more Mathematical and Quantum Mechanical development.
-Dan
I do want to discuss infinite space ! You say use V for volume but a volume has a finite label in general . According to Wiki :
Real coordinate space - Wikipedia
It says I can use it for unspecified dimensions ?
Q / R^n ???????
In numbers 1 / >1 = <1
and the force
(Q / F<E) / t
The momentum P
P = c
Because c is
c ∝ E / <E
c ∝ F<E
Last edited:
Perhaps one of my diagrams will help explain , what I want to explain in maths .
I have 24 pages written so far in pdf with diagrams and explanation . I only need to get the correct math . The center of the diagram is a point charge , I want to explain this charge being divided by the n-dimensional surrounding space .
I have 24 pages written so far in pdf with diagrams and explanation . I only need to get the correct math . The center of the diagram is a point charge , I want to explain this charge being divided by the n-dimensional surrounding space .
Last edited:
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
So your R simply means "radius?" Okay, then. But you would still only want n = 3 to represent a volume. Unless you want more than 3 dimensions of space. If you want more you should probably still specify what n is.
Also, p can't be equal to c. Even relativistically the spacial components of p have to be proportional to the mass (for particles v < c) or proportional to frequency (for particles v = c.) And what does " (Q / F < E) / t " mean? Do you simply mean (Q/F/t) = Q/(Ft) for F < E? This is very confusing.
There are a lot of non-standard things going on here. Perhaps I'm not seeing more sense in them because I haven't looked at the whole paper but your notation makes things mysterious whereas it should be used to make things clearer.
-Dan
Also, p can't be equal to c. Even relativistically the spacial components of p have to be proportional to the mass (for particles v < c) or proportional to frequency (for particles v = c.) And what does " (Q / F < E) / t " mean? Do you simply mean (Q/F/t) = Q/(Ft) for F < E? This is very confusing.
There are a lot of non-standard things going on here. Perhaps I'm not seeing more sense in them because I haven't looked at the whole paper but your notation makes things mysterious whereas it should be used to make things clearer.
-Dan
It is probably confusing for the reason you have not read more of my theory . R is not radius , it is real coordinate space and n specifies that the dimensions have no specifics . R is used more in terms of isotropic .
Q / F<E is stating the force that divides the point charge is the force of the lesser energy . ''hot'' to ''cold'' .
My theory when I write the section about the nature of light explains light has no propulsion / thrust . Light is attracted to lesser energy states , F<E . Light has no independent speed .
Perhaps this will help !
topsquark
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
Unfortunately it does. Except for a really really small Quantum Gravity effect light does not care about the energy level it is interacting with. This statement is not correct.
-Dan
Edit: Okay, my answer is too glib and it is bothering me. Technically I'm not correct here, either.
What you say about global properties is true, this is nothing more than basic Thermodynamics. Heat, usually transmitted by EM radiation in one sense or another, does flow from high temperatures to lower temperatures and you can get a sketchy argument with this. The problem is that you are trying to say that this works for individual particles and that means you are moving away from Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics, and invoking quantum particles like electrons and photons you are specializing to Quantum Statistical Mechanics. You can't say with any certainty what is going to happen to one electron or photon... you can only talk about them in "bulk" numbers.
So I will repeat my answer with a small caveat: "Except for a really really small Quantum Gravity effect light does not care about the energy level it is interacting with." Your statement is only correct in a statistical sense and you appear to be talking about one electron at a time. This negates your argument.
-Dan
Last edited:
I feel we are close to understanding each other !
You say '' The problem is that you are trying to say that this works for individual particles '' .
Let me clarify this for you , I'm not saying this for individual particles , I'm saying this firstly for individual virtual mono-pole particles that are not a real particle because they have no binary to bond themselves . They are not stable matter because they have no binary , so self annihilate by the simple laws of thermodynamics and transition of one state to another .
Secondly I am saying when two opposite charged individual virtual mono-pole particles manifest simultaneously at the exact same given point , this forms a real particle because there is a binary mechanism of the two opposite charges . Then rather than a total annihilation , this energy is stretched isotropic to form a sphere shape , the binary retaining its identity of 1 . In a sense a black hole .
-Q / R^n = 0 magnitude 0 density 0 identity
+Q / R^n = 0 magnitude 0 density 0 identity
((-Q) + (+Q) / t) * E³ / R^n = 4/3 pi r³ density , magnitude , identity 1 , a five dimensional manifold of xyzE and entropy (S)
Delta S = Delta t
Where t is time .
P.s Just to note , the second explanation is pre-big bang , the physics for particles is then slightly different within the formed singularities interior field matter . Mono-pole virtual particles can form within the binary field without annihilating . A -Q or +Q formed within the binary field stays -Q or +Q and gains an identity of 1 . The binary field pushes back , Newtons third law and stops the virtual particle self annihilating . The likewise charge force of the binary field helping to retain the form of the formed interior particles .
You can just change the label to e to cover the electron model of the same process.
The final piece is that formed particles within the singularity binary field have their energy stretched that forms particle fields within the singularity field . The particles energy still being attracted to the lesser energy state beyond the singularities field .
Do I have proof of the singularity field ? Yes of course , the Earth pushes ''down'' on it to be an oblate shape and the force of the singularity field pushes back .
Last edited: