Why We Are Merely Amazin, With More Mass!
Heaviside and others in the late 1800's were thinking of building a machine to send a wave faster than light in the same venue as a sign with your name up in lights has apparent motion at much "faster than light". You see on the web on some sites where the machine has recently been built, and would have been built then if Einstein's relativity hadn't been so influental those who were going to build the machine abandoned their research, assuming it was not of value to continue.
I believe there is still no "electromagnetic" signal moving faster than light inside the Heaviside machine. Even so there may be a way to make use this type of machine also about the possibility of faster than light wave motion. As I say here there are several lines of evidence in what I call GWD, General Wave Dynamics that lead to the possibility of faster than light for gravity. (For instance as I say on the link, new low energy observations at the largest cosmic scales the cosmos has "regular sides" which I take to be evidence that gravity may be faster than light because it's lighter than light. The only two long range forces known at cosmic scales are electromagnetism and gravity and light is too slow to unify the "ears". (The cosmos rings like a bell, but this is another story.) The evidence for the light speed of gravity believed by some to be needed to explain the slowing of the pulsars may be because of the assumptions of General Relativity being built into the calculations so much they may be assuming what they were trying to prove about this, after all does anyone really understand GR? If so why haven't those doing the calculations noticed that GR holds that all masses fall at the same rate and then the contradiction that the orbit of Mercury and other "predictions based on this" are actually based on changing not constant rates of fall, the foundation needed to make gravity relativistic so it's speed would be at the speed of light would be achieved.
Therefore I think it's possible gravity waves may be faster than light. Einstein's prediction of the existence of gravity waves my soon be proven by either methods I describe on my page using atomic clocks or by the new IP machines that use heavy nuclear resonations and accelerations to both send and receive the gravity waves at the known mass density, more massive than the waves inside the pulsars to hopefully make and measure the waves.
The first assumption that faster than light is possible leads to a problem; scientists have despaired over ever finding gravity waves in the past because the energy is so low and the frequency so high it has seemed impossible to find the feeble wave among all the rest of the higher energy changes in the mass nearby.
Thus even if experiments may soon prove the speed of the gravity itself, by general methods like atomic clocks or the nuclear resonance, we may be able to prove the speed but like two large ships sensing lots of small waves between them that slowly build up the ship, the individual waves may be far too feeble to find if the much slower ships of electromagnetic charges are the heavy particles of the IP machine...The matter waves themselves may be at another wavelength and at higher speed to reduce interaction with the electric charges and relativity's electromagnetic speed of light, it's by the sudden phase shift that would jump the quantum well and change to what myself and others believe may be a superfluid, ect, for the lower energy field to move FTL, ect as I say on my synopsis page (if I spelled synopses in latin no ixnay, to spelling beatrice!)
No doubt we would be able to send information at whatever speed the waves allow with the machine just by accelerating the heavy particles as they say on the site about the new machine. Even so if the waves are much faster than light there would the possibility of huge increases of bandwidth in the signal rather than "mere light". This is where I wonder a bit; first, gravity and the matter waves are faster than light. Second, another of Einstein's ideas, the low energy particle he assumes to get around the Uncertainty Principle may exist. If not, why wouldn't more mass occupy more room not less as the Uncertainty Principle holds, all around is proof of Einstein being aware of mass. A low energy particle wouldn't add so much mass as you measure them so they don't gain infinite mass from the observing particle, a smaller mass around us has less size, not more.
If Einstein was correct about the low energy particle this would be of worth to build a machine to measure the waves at higher bandwidth and recent low energy physics experiments seem to prove he was more correct.
Time is not infinitely divisible or it wouldn't be stable. If it's unlimited in resolution this is because time is not derived from the higher energy fields of subatomic physics, or we would have already found the limit, the limit of mass for each particle is easy to find, not the time, thus the continuity of the space and time down to the subatomic level is from another cause, the matter field, and this itself must be stable to make the rest of the fields, mass and energy, space and time stable.
If we line up "Einstein's" electromagnetic particles (or particles like the neutron still with internal electric charges) in rows like wires by doing something like ionizing them by perhaps something like "boiling" them off other particles they make up and condensing them on a substrate or perhaps resonating them in tube like for a laser, if the individual motion of each particle could be perhaps measured electromagnetically by multiplying up the small motion of each particle as the high speed wave of the field passes through we might then be able to measure not only the individual waves much better, because of the high frequency of the waves we might be able to measure time with much higher precision, the particles being more like a beach ball or wave machine like used to save lives at 200 mph than a giant ship, so their motion might be more measurable. The frequency may be extremely high because the wavelength of gravity in general would reach the subatomic realm to interact so much with it; thus with the super high speed of GWD, the short wavelength of this realm of the spectrum might make the frequency much higher, of use perhaps to then measure time well.
.
Those who measure time say there's no theoretical limit to how much more we can measure time with higher resolution. The problem here is, like infinite wheels in wheels, if time were infinitely divisible, it would be infinite, so there must be a real actual stable limit of the divisibility of time. If a body in motion were moving through infinitely divisible time at the point of infinite division the time would be 0 and the motion would not take place for the moving body, reductio ad absurdarn. If this limit were found by usual electromagnetism or other subatomic physics, the limit would have already been found. Space and time are completely continuous in the subatomic realm, yet there must be a stable foundation if all around there is stability. In GWD, space and time are actually not continuous at the scale of the lower energy. The particles only seem continuous due to their high speed and frequency. We couldn't seem to find unlimited divisibility of time in subatomic physics if the quanta are the foundation because they are unchanging. More divisibility yet would mean a lower energy foundation and this itself would have to be stable and if it's so this could be the limit to the divisibility of time. Unlike known subatomic physics there might need to be a limit for stability. In subatomic physics, this might seem to be resistance to spinning around at faster than like by quanta of spin, small clocks that spin might thus resist more motion thus even with theoretical infinite divisability, so the actual practical limit like that of the higher energy particles might seem to be limited by the resistance of the field or the speed of light. If so like the particle's masses we would have already found it. The continuity of space and time are not quanta, so they may be derived from another level of continuous energy than the quanta, the realm of the matter waves.
This may mean if we might eventually build a machine of the low energy particles Einstein believed in, and send the high speed wave through it generated by the nuclear machine we could perhaps measure time with much higher precision than via atomic clocks. Like atomic clocks themselves, the higher precision possible might be found by sampling the signal from this "graviton clock" at intervals with the atomic clock, to check for reliable timing like via atomic clocks with the quartz clock, except at higher frequency.
You may say, right, there are low energy physics known and there are no lower energy real particles than the photon or neutrino, all lower energy particles are not found. If the particle isn't stable there may be no way to make the wires, boil the particles and so on. It seems possible that these particles can be stable, because they would be the lower energy foundation on which all the rest is built, if the photon is stable the particles that make it up are near enough in energy to be nearly stable too at any rate, especially if the Uncertainty Principle isn't true and these particles like Einstein believed could get around the Uncertainty Principle, by this they are low energy and perhaps more particulate than a wave via the Uncertainty Principle would allow.
If the low energy particles Einstein believed in aren't found, another way to use the low nuclear wave machine may be to send out the wave. If it's faster than light, to make use of the bandwidth an array of the sensors might be used; a wave also faster than light at 90 degees with resonation at the same general energy of the machine could be used that sends the image of the wavelets of the primary wave by like resonation at the same general energy and then finds the sensors of the array, like lighting up the cinema lights and perhaps all our names up in faster than lights, in AR, and more! Even though none of the "ships" of the heavy particles themselves can go faster than light, the signal could perhaps measure the faster than light sub components of the matter wave. Due to relativity and it's electromagnetic speed of light, the particles of the machine like heavy particles can't move faster than light, even a neutron has an inner charge as evidenced by its small magnetic field (the two charges combined to make it aren't exactly equal in GWD because matter and antimatter would be the same if relativity and subatomic physics were both true as Dirac predicted, and the former seems more general because e.g. it has a large number of things SR can't predict, all this arises in GWD because of faster than light spin, the cause of higher mass than the electron, and SR and all the rest might be derived from GWD but not SR if mass is spinning energy.).
This improvement of the IP machine would first give us the possibility of an extreme precision in our clocks not found in atomic clocks. and by reversing the process, so the timer makes each sensor in the array actuate the signal at the right time if faster than light we could then send the signal itself via the higher number of cycles per second by moving the heavy particles in synchronization at short distances with great force if each sensor is connected to a generator that sends the bit. And an array of sensors themselves would be used to find the high speed signal using the same timing method in reverse to both time send and recieve the signal.. Even if by relativity, no heavy particle can move faster than light, the machine might solve this by the method of the cinema sign with my name when I read with my visors on! The problem of the signal needing time to build up between the sensor and the array might be solved by increasing the pressure on each side of the sensors, rather like the steering of a car. The two forces on each side of your hand as you drive are in balance so you can control the more powerful signal by a smaller force to amplify the signal.
Unlike the lighter resonation of Einstein's particle this may have an ultimate limit by Einstein's other belief about relativity because there's a limit to the amount of strong force that can be caused by compression to overpower the resistance of the inertia of the field and the speed of light and relativity. This would be reached as the distance is shorter and more force is added, even so there is only so much strong force there, the matter waves are lower energy and relativity is strong. Thus in this version of the machine the method to speed up the signal if it's possible may be to build ever larger arrays.
....
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Sound Eating and Light Eating for Health
Research shows that mice even with a small amount of light (like a small TV's worth) while they sleep gained about 12 grams of fat while those without the light gained just 8 grams. (But what mice smoke in laboratory research?) No need to put a wall of light in your kitchen if other science shows merely painting the walls the right hue helps to lose fat.
It's been found that people in noisy sleep environments have an increase in blood pressure even while asleep and even for hours after the noise is stopped. Noise worldwide is estimated to be the cause of 100,000 deaths a year by raising blood pressure. This leads to the interesting question of noise and weight, if noise makes people or mice gain weight. If so there may be legal questions like in the Mcdonalds this year in Brazil that's awarding 75,000 to an employee who said they had mystery customers (he saw them in the light no doubt so he claimed he had to eat to stay healthy in business, winning the lawsuit.). Mcdonalds said they offered health alternatives for the Franchise owner but in the trial this was refuted. The answer to the obesity epidemic might thus be to merely put on antinoise headphones, and employers might indeed get much higher productivity as research also shows that conversationl distractions cause double the reduction of employee efficiency, thus cheap viable antinoise may be a major step forward for billions of people, a side order of cheeze for a rich inventor!
Here's the link to the site about Light and it's Influence on Weight.
..
Research shows that mice even with a small amount of light (like a small TV's worth) while they sleep gained about 12 grams of fat while those without the light gained just 8 grams. (But what mice smoke in laboratory research?) No need to put a wall of light in your kitchen if other science shows merely painting the walls the right hue helps to lose fat.
It's been found that people in noisy sleep environments have an increase in blood pressure even while asleep and even for hours after the noise is stopped. Noise worldwide is estimated to be the cause of 100,000 deaths a year by raising blood pressure. This leads to the interesting question of noise and weight, if noise makes people or mice gain weight. If so there may be legal questions like in the Mcdonalds this year in Brazil that's awarding 75,000 to an employee who said they had mystery customers (he saw them in the light no doubt so he claimed he had to eat to stay healthy in business, winning the lawsuit.). Mcdonalds said they offered health alternatives for the Franchise owner but in the trial this was refuted. The answer to the obesity epidemic might thus be to merely put on antinoise headphones, and employers might indeed get much higher productivity as research also shows that conversationl distractions cause double the reduction of employee efficiency, thus cheap viable antinoise may be a major step forward for billions of people, a side order of cheeze for a rich inventor!
Here's the link to the site about Light and it's Influence on Weight.
..
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Have you heard of Opsins? Think of "Optimal Signs"..
Opsins are a new development in physiology found and developed over 30 years, opsins are cellular pumps that are activated by light. They have been first found in bacilli that live in places like lakes or salt lakes where no other life can thrive. The trick is to first extract them from the bacilli and inject them into the brains of lab mice with a special virus that finds only the cells to reach. Once in place the three important known types of opsins are an ion pump that can be powered by light, the three kinds of opsins can each be powered by red yellow or blue light. The remarkable thing about opsins is they act as a small electrode in the brain. In the lab, behavior of mice with opsins can be changed at will just by changing the light as the mouse moves around, and the behavior started or stopped by turning off the light.
For now opsins are thought of mostly as a diagnostic tool. By changing just the neurons or one neuron at a time, much more exact brain research can be achieved, unlike probes which can’t be made small enough to change individual neurons with reliable power. Evidence that MRI works reliably to tell us about brain chemistry by correlation has been proven with the opsins already, which was believed though not proven, and with other important findings about illnesses such as Parkinson's’s and schizophrenia, where there are more gamma brain waves now proven to be caused by parvalbumin neurons as had been believed. In other research, Anatol Kreitzer and colleagues at U.C.S.F have found that Parkinson’s can be turned on or off by using a red light opsin to change the frequency of neurons, one slows movements, and one speeds them up and can counteract Parkinson’s by changing the firing rate.
..
The method of using opsins is generally to stimulate just one neuron at time and turn it on and off at will in order to prove the worth and action of drugs for research at a higher rate of reliability, this would be the first phase. I believe however opsin like pumps might be engineered that would not just be activated by light, rather they could use some all present chemical in all the cells of the body, e.g Hydrogen peroxide, melatonin, or oxygen to power the pump permanently increasing or decreasing the presence of some chemicals in the body. While opsins are now thought to be mostly of worth to make better drugs, and for improving brain drugs more reliably and faster, by permanently rewiring the brain, opsins may eventually be a cure for mental illness and other illnesses like Parkinson’s, and a cure for illnesses like diabetes by using the pumps in the pancreas or elsewhere to produce more insulin. Like the ancient belief that illness or health is caused by the fluids or humors, many illness have too much of a some compound or too little in circulation. Thus the pumps that would take up compounds would also make many illnesses as if cured. In schizophrenia for example the presence of endorphins is 10 to 100 times that of others without the illness (Removing the endorphins by dialysis for those with the illness has been shown to stop the symptoms they have for days.) Thus a pump that would take up the endorphins and perhaps combine them with some other compound to make them then digestible and removed from the circulation by way of the kidneys would be like a cure without having to change the neurons which would seem to have ethical considerations. Ethical objections to changing behavior could also be solved by making the changes optional and removable if they turned out to be without as much value, especially till the value of opsins is better known. For now we would always use opsins powered by light that can be turned off, if they are well proven then we might consider more permanent pumps, even so the best option would be to make these also changeable, perhaps even making them changeable by genetic engineering so only the right kind of computer coded light would turn them on and off, and by making sure the chance of this in usual life of accidental change in the pumps would be uncommon.
The mapping of the human genome has seemed to fail to find any convenient genes for illness or health, so far the DNA has been found to be so polygenic there have been few definite genes found for illnesses, this would seem to be because the body is like a complex ecosystem with each part precisely reflecting the image like the inner or of the inner world, like a crystal with each facet reflecting just so and if any of it is changed all of it will be changed in complex ways each dependant on the other. Thus there may be few simple genes found to cure illness. Actually I believe this would not be like the brains neurons where they have found a few "boss" neurons that control the rest. In evolution this would be because like a bird not having two sets of wings, one simple central controlling force would be more conducive to survival in danger, so the brain may have these controlling neurons. For genes however since they are slower to change than behavior, less centralized, and not in competition so much more complex control may be the way of evolution. This may be why in recent research they've found that in the time of our civilization our evolution has actually been much slower than expected, genes wouldn't be mostly polygenic because if they are mostly for the life of the organism, as in this recent article by Jonathan P. because they don't need to be so complex. There are methods of changing genes fast e.g. some vitamins, even so the general framework of is mostly constant. If so opsins may be especially of worth because changing the genes may be especially unwise if they’re all needed and of worth to the rest due to the complexity. If we change on gene, all the other may be irreparably harmed, at least long term. By mostly bypassing the genes with the small pumps, this risk may be reduced.
The pumps be used to cure many illnesses, being a neurostimulant, and it may be a genius pill, a memory pill, an energy pill, a pill to love chocolate, even more, I've loved chocolate 1000 years! It’s been said if any of the new brain boosting pills being developed works, it will be the most popular of all time. They may cure mental illness and addictions, debt behaviour, retardation, perhaps most or all behavioural woes.
.
The opsins were found in unharmed ecosystems like the salt marshes, people would perhaps never have guessed how to engineer them on their own, it seems of worth that we save the ecology to save the world.
More About Opsins..
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Why is There More Matter Than Antimatter if both Special Relativity and Subatomic Physics Are well Proven?
Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter based on the union of special relativity with quantum mechanics. As I say on this page Click Here he also predicted magnetic monopoles based on the same blend of physics (and just a bit of sci fi.). If magnetic monopoles are indeed not found, this seems to imply either SR or quantum mechanics is more of worth, and since the latter has many more complex predictions that are not about SR, with no “loose ends” special relativity SR in my belief may only be a subset of subatomic physics. Relativity won’t tell us why the mass of an Lamda or what the S quantum number is, so I believe relativity is incomplete.
Since there are no monopoles found, this seems to be evidence for this, even so you could also say, if QM and subatomic physics are unified, antimatter would be the result. So why is antimatter found and monopoles are not if there is a distinction of SR and subatomic physics?
In my belief mass and energy are not the same, mass is heavy and unifies to oneness, energy is light and more common, fermions and bosons, the balance of opposites that are all around us, hot and cool, plethora and paucity, earth and moon, research and rest so the web allows memory consolidation for our brain!
In SR mass and energy are called equivalent, the mass augmentation of SR is derived from the motion through the field on acceleration, that is, derived from motion. Motion is energy, so what Einstein assumed to be mass energy equivalence in SR thus is actually not the same wrench of the cosmic magicians, matter which is a bit more like mass, and antimatter, more like energy, are mostly not like mass and energy. Thus the matter antimatter conversion to energy predicted by SR and atomic physics seems more like an energy energy conversion to energy than a mass conversion to energy. It’s highly efficient but this would mostly be because the energy energy of matter and antimatter are more at the same level of power than mass to energy, resonating like two antenna of the same wavelength. In truth if mass and energy were exactly the same there would be no way to say if mass were a wrench or a power washer of the displacement of light on the starship windshield.
Equal and opposite energy energy would be more unstable than the more unequal change of mass to energy..
The asymmetry of matter would be caused by the natural asymmetry of mass and energy, not a mysterious force that some invoke to solve the asymmetry. A particle of this type would have to be in most interactions to mediate the asymmetry, and isn’t seen. The Standard Theory (or what's known about it) has no loose ends (at least on the outside, deeper in I believe the fractional charges may move faster than light with higher density of the wave and so on, my hopefully optimal generalization of Maxwell’s idea he used to predict the speed of light based on the density of the medium of the wave. This higher speed motion inside the particles would explain why there are three generations of fermions even though they all have the same electric charge. This logically follows in what I call my physics of GWD General Wave Dynamics because on the outside of each particle the speed of the spin is just the speed of light to obey relativity so well, and deeper in the spin has the faster than light phase change, and more mass arises for the extra motion because all mass and energy are made of motion and it would take more motion than the speed of light to make a heavier electromagnetic particle than an electron. Electrons and the unified speed of light Maxwell used to predict the speed of light and unified electric charges seem to be all relativity allows. ).
There is much evidence for SR, and even so in GWD it’s true superficially, like what‘s seen from a distance at near the speed of light with no force acting in the rest frame of observers motion. In GWD what we see at great remove is only mere looks, not what we feel, real forces, real control. The religions of the world teach that looks are shallow, and aren’t the higher truth. In order to make the acceleration fit in with the idea of relativity’s uniform motion, or actually just description of the motion without cause, Einstein believed no force of gravity exists, and this was the rather comic way he formulated General Relativity. General Wave Dynamics describes all forces by the causes in Dynamics not just a description of motion.
The superficial truth of SR would be because mass and energy are both based on energy conservation, quantity of motion. Thus while there are small bits and washers of antimatter in the machinists shop shelf of science caused by common physics, there isn’t as much antimatter because stability around us needs the asymmetry between mostly unlike action and reaction. In relativity both high or low speed observers are either at rest or in motion, so mass and energy seem the same, so actually matter and antimatter would be equivalent. If mass and energy were exactly the same they would convert right away, instead it takes billions of years in massive stars, and common reactions in our own cosmic reactor nearby take months to hear about when powertrain returns are at the relative motion of the station..
I believe SR being about the speed of light is mostly a thermodynamic explanation of the large middle realm where electromagnetism is in control. At the extremes like for gravity and the strong force, the waves may be faster than light in GWD by way of a phase change. If antimatter is about electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is about the electric charge on the outside of heavy particles and not deeper in where the fractional charges would perhaps have lightened up to travel faster than light, the equivalence of the electric charge being merely reversed for the antimatter would seem to not hold, because by the phase change in order to not gain infinite relativistic mass at faster than light the inner field by definition would not be interacting to the degree of special relativity. Annihilation may seem to not hold for both the electric field and the strong force of heavy particles if SR is only about the electric field. Annihilation would be efficient it seems because the longer range implosion of the opposite electric charges funnels in the atoms to the antiatom, then the strong force itself is multiplied up more by it’s own power. The general implosion would boost the strong force implosion to higher efficiency and the electric field of the particles may be much stronger at close range due to the compression of the field lines by the strong force. The strong force doesn’t implode much, it’s not long range and yet it’s much stronger than the long range electromagnetism, so the centrifugal force of the longer range electric field has more compressed power here to balance out the implosion or there would be unlimited implosion.
The antimatter of the strong force is always created in pair production out of the lower energy electric charges; all the quantum numbers and conservation laws of the lower energy fields plus more are always conserved for higher energies, thus to make heavy antimatter the exact type that is strong force antimatter of the same energy based on the precision of this interaction is the type that is created, a proton and and an antiproton would annihilate by weigh of the strong force being mirrored by way of the electric field. The control of heavy matter and antimatter annihilation would not be superficial to the electric field because the heavy antimatter itself is mediated by way of the electric field, this would in truth perhaps be the mechanism of confinement, going through the lower energy field where relativity holds to reach the higher energy. This would be why there are other combinations of the fractional charges possible that aren't seen, with heavy particles of resulting fractional charge always caused to be of 1 or -1 because of the necessity of the mediation by way of special relativity always being conserved with the speed of light constant at lower power.
An electron is light and a proton is heavy, why not the other way around, why not a + light particle and a heavy -? A heavy negative stable particle seems possible, though it would much change some atomic and most chemical reactions. The main reason the proton is mostly stable as known may be not because of the weak force, the strong force or electromagnetism alone; these forces are the same as for other mesons and the rest of the heavy particles. I think the stability here is caused instead by the threeness of the fractional charges at the lowest energy of the baryons, this seems to be what’s the most unusual about the proton. The three fractional charges would take more power to cause reactions than the rest of the heavy particles. It’s well established that reactions always go slower if the particle has to flip to another, as I say on this page, my complete proton confinement/stability site with more about this.
The proton’s stability thus seems positive, but only because it’s at the right energy to be stable, not because of any fundamental connection with conservation of electric charge. There are lots of negative heavy particles that aren’t stable, that none of them may be so because there is only the stable proton, which turns out to be positive by resonation with just that positive field there at that energy may just be coincidence. I believe the proton is stable because it has three charges, and is coincidentally positive, but the three charges are caused by it being at that energy level of the wheel rotation in 1000 light years. There could indeed have been a stable heavy negative particle if it were not the same mass as the proton for stability.
Here too even if the stable heavy particle was negative, it would need to have another rest mass than the proton for stability. All energy conservation is based on action reaction pairs, if all is in balance all motion would stop, if you press two weights on the Mazda and lift with force, the car will stay higher while you seal the wheels, even so if it dropped on the station, Ouch! For all to be in motion, the two action reaction pairs need to be unlike, mass and energy, so in GWD the mass energy asymmetry is deeper than relativity.
Monopoles are related to the fundamental necessity for all particles to have angular momentum. All known mass flows through time, the spins would be like small clocks, particles have poles when they spin, thus a monopole is tougher to create than a mere negative bubble of the field. The monopole asymmetry may be a more exact asymmetry based on geometry than matter and antimatter, after all leptons aren’t the opposite of heavy particles, the scale of rest mass of the mesons and leptons and other headlights of the speed of light rest in subatomic physics is continuous. If there were always more energy for more mass by the discontinuous quanta of Emc2 instead of the more general F=ma we would expect that much more antimatter always. In other science, life as in evolution is not about exact opposites, rather more small changes in large numbers.
Dirac’s original conception of matter was a large lower energy level where all the mass was and a higher energy negative “sea” of unoccupied states for the antimatter. Why only one sea mostly not two would be because of the lower energy “sea” being held together by the general cohesion of the field, gravity. The lowest energy field to conserve energy in general has to be implosive because if it were in radiance more than cohesion all the mass of the universe would have fizzled out to 0 density. Lack of cohesion causes instability because by what seems to be the mere energy energy equivalence of SR, no mass is more at rest or in motion, even while gravity is less privileged for the earth than the sun, and less privileged for the moon than the earth by rate of fall. Relativity with no definite place of rest like matter and antimatter would seem inherently unstable, so antimatter’s rarity would be against the complete proof of relativity. Neither Newton or Einstein believed that being at rest in the field of the earth was more fundamental than uniform motion, but those with common knowledge often would remark when work is done, labor is more powerful than rest. As evolution holds, the most behaviour of worth is what creates the most real change. If the low energy field is always flexing and holding the higher fields of the mesons and other light and heavy particles together and work is always being achieved, the most natural way is for the main central flow of the energy to be with more work done by change, not energy to energy, energy to mass. (It’s also much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and this would be expected if SR were more superficial than GWD.)
The needed cohesion of the fields would hold the main low energy sea in a central river of flow of the field, mass to energy or energy to mass, but not energy to energy as often. We might indeed think of the central flow of the mass and energy of the particles and forces as the flow of a river, and antimatter as a more rare shore that’s not so easy to reach mostly because it doesn’t flow uphill either. Hold on, You may say, about information and the web to those in complexity math believe that any computer with enough time can solve any problem. If the fields are like a river and a bank this seems like the orbit of the Earth in the old days tough to reach by airplane, but not impossible either. Sooner or later our efficiency at creating antimatter, like cost of payload per pound, may be so much cheaper with improved machines so much that GWD will fail, and (almost) as much matter as antimatter may be created. That certainly seems to be untrue now, because the cost of making antimatter by current methods is estimated at quadrillions to make a gram.
As I say it seems much more that our life was 99% evolved on the land of the world, and while orbit is easy to reach, we won’t live up there for months or year round and around! The cost of living in a space station is estimated to be a million per capita and as it is an explosion caused by a piece of paint could slow the space program’s advance by 25 years, for essentially the same reason about the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in GWD, about efficiency.
Thus antimatter would seem to be limited like travel to Mars by general limits of physics. Here in 2010 we go to orbit as often as we like (within limits) so we may be able to make lots of antimatter, like boosting to orbit, by building tubes (or elevators to orbit) to pump the water from the river to the higher shore. If we could make the tube and pump efficient, perhaps using waves like solitions that don’t lose much energy as they pump the matter into antimatter in the tube, we might be able to create large amounts of it cheaper. And as you see on this site this has recently been patented, with the resonance in the tube being as predicted to “create antimatter from matter with “mere heat”. This will save millions on the cost of using “atom smashers” which cost because among other things they are competing with other uses of the machines to take time making the stuff.
Even as matter is not the same as energy and matter and antimatter are not perhaps equivalent by the slight changes even in SR where the average agreements on the speed of light of many observers will give general agreement about who is at rest or in motion if the history of all the observers are included, we might expect small changes even in matter and antimatter not seen in SR. I believe matter and antimatter in accordance with the distinction of the heavy oneness and many reradiance of GWD might have slight changes in spin not seen in SR, and because creation of matter and antimatter is an energy energy conversion, not matter to matter, the lower energy antiparticles like the positron, being with a lower energy quantum well, would convert the electron to a positron more easily than say a proton to an antiproton. and the rate of decay of an antineutron to an antiproton and positron to be at a somewhat different rate than the matter equivalent.
Antiatoms have much more volatile reactions with matter than mere positrons when they annihilate with electrons. As we would expect if mass and energy is asymmetrical and SR is not the most general, the lighter positron and electron is easier to create and destroy without much labor than the heavier proton and antiproton. If mass and energy were the same, all there was would have the same mass and energy. All particles would have the same mass and the rate of fall on the moon and earth would be the same, and so on. This is my “literal” definition of relativity.
Relativity is a profound idea. A world of complete democracy where all are created equal even so seems uncommon sense without the boss of gravity or king acceleration to optimize. If labor is so worthwhile why would we rest? I believe the small distinctions of matter and antimatter being about the energy energy equivalence of SR would only be in accord with the degree to which observers in SR can find who is actually more at rest or in motion by keeping track of the redshift of all the observers, all with lower redshift observers and higher mass are moving slower by way of conservation of angular and linear flow of the field and the rest are moving faster. By way of the information found by way of the light about who is with acceleration, even in SR with the equal redshift for both the accelerating observer and the slower observer, we have a way to know who is at rest or in motion, as we would expect if SR is incomplete. The more observers with lower redshift and without acceleration, the more probable they're at rest.
Another way of expressing the same idea is that a hill like matter is not exactly the size of the hole where the stuff was removed ("antimatter") from when you dig with your shovel in a field of gravity. The Earth is rounder on the outside and has more room here! There are both mountains and ocean depths but the oceans are generally deeper. Thus the effects like slower rate of radioactivity could be more pronounced with stronger electric or magnetic fields which also have their attractive component (derived from the basic lower energy field.) Relativity is about empty space time, not electromagnetism, so this could be a proof of GWD not relativity.
..
Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter based on the union of special relativity with quantum mechanics. As I say on this page Click Here he also predicted magnetic monopoles based on the same blend of physics (and just a bit of sci fi.). If magnetic monopoles are indeed not found, this seems to imply either SR or quantum mechanics is more of worth, and since the latter has many more complex predictions that are not about SR, with no “loose ends” special relativity SR in my belief may only be a subset of subatomic physics. Relativity won’t tell us why the mass of an Lamda or what the S quantum number is, so I believe relativity is incomplete.
Since there are no monopoles found, this seems to be evidence for this, even so you could also say, if QM and subatomic physics are unified, antimatter would be the result. So why is antimatter found and monopoles are not if there is a distinction of SR and subatomic physics?
In my belief mass and energy are not the same, mass is heavy and unifies to oneness, energy is light and more common, fermions and bosons, the balance of opposites that are all around us, hot and cool, plethora and paucity, earth and moon, research and rest so the web allows memory consolidation for our brain!
In SR mass and energy are called equivalent, the mass augmentation of SR is derived from the motion through the field on acceleration, that is, derived from motion. Motion is energy, so what Einstein assumed to be mass energy equivalence in SR thus is actually not the same wrench of the cosmic magicians, matter which is a bit more like mass, and antimatter, more like energy, are mostly not like mass and energy. Thus the matter antimatter conversion to energy predicted by SR and atomic physics seems more like an energy energy conversion to energy than a mass conversion to energy. It’s highly efficient but this would mostly be because the energy energy of matter and antimatter are more at the same level of power than mass to energy, resonating like two antenna of the same wavelength. In truth if mass and energy were exactly the same there would be no way to say if mass were a wrench or a power washer of the displacement of light on the starship windshield.
Equal and opposite energy energy would be more unstable than the more unequal change of mass to energy..
The asymmetry of matter would be caused by the natural asymmetry of mass and energy, not a mysterious force that some invoke to solve the asymmetry. A particle of this type would have to be in most interactions to mediate the asymmetry, and isn’t seen. The Standard Theory (or what's known about it) has no loose ends (at least on the outside, deeper in I believe the fractional charges may move faster than light with higher density of the wave and so on, my hopefully optimal generalization of Maxwell’s idea he used to predict the speed of light based on the density of the medium of the wave. This higher speed motion inside the particles would explain why there are three generations of fermions even though they all have the same electric charge. This logically follows in what I call my physics of GWD General Wave Dynamics because on the outside of each particle the speed of the spin is just the speed of light to obey relativity so well, and deeper in the spin has the faster than light phase change, and more mass arises for the extra motion because all mass and energy are made of motion and it would take more motion than the speed of light to make a heavier electromagnetic particle than an electron. Electrons and the unified speed of light Maxwell used to predict the speed of light and unified electric charges seem to be all relativity allows. ).
There is much evidence for SR, and even so in GWD it’s true superficially, like what‘s seen from a distance at near the speed of light with no force acting in the rest frame of observers motion. In GWD what we see at great remove is only mere looks, not what we feel, real forces, real control. The religions of the world teach that looks are shallow, and aren’t the higher truth. In order to make the acceleration fit in with the idea of relativity’s uniform motion, or actually just description of the motion without cause, Einstein believed no force of gravity exists, and this was the rather comic way he formulated General Relativity. General Wave Dynamics describes all forces by the causes in Dynamics not just a description of motion.
The superficial truth of SR would be because mass and energy are both based on energy conservation, quantity of motion. Thus while there are small bits and washers of antimatter in the machinists shop shelf of science caused by common physics, there isn’t as much antimatter because stability around us needs the asymmetry between mostly unlike action and reaction. In relativity both high or low speed observers are either at rest or in motion, so mass and energy seem the same, so actually matter and antimatter would be equivalent. If mass and energy were exactly the same they would convert right away, instead it takes billions of years in massive stars, and common reactions in our own cosmic reactor nearby take months to hear about when powertrain returns are at the relative motion of the station..
I believe SR being about the speed of light is mostly a thermodynamic explanation of the large middle realm where electromagnetism is in control. At the extremes like for gravity and the strong force, the waves may be faster than light in GWD by way of a phase change. If antimatter is about electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is about the electric charge on the outside of heavy particles and not deeper in where the fractional charges would perhaps have lightened up to travel faster than light, the equivalence of the electric charge being merely reversed for the antimatter would seem to not hold, because by the phase change in order to not gain infinite relativistic mass at faster than light the inner field by definition would not be interacting to the degree of special relativity. Annihilation may seem to not hold for both the electric field and the strong force of heavy particles if SR is only about the electric field. Annihilation would be efficient it seems because the longer range implosion of the opposite electric charges funnels in the atoms to the antiatom, then the strong force itself is multiplied up more by it’s own power. The general implosion would boost the strong force implosion to higher efficiency and the electric field of the particles may be much stronger at close range due to the compression of the field lines by the strong force. The strong force doesn’t implode much, it’s not long range and yet it’s much stronger than the long range electromagnetism, so the centrifugal force of the longer range electric field has more compressed power here to balance out the implosion or there would be unlimited implosion.
The antimatter of the strong force is always created in pair production out of the lower energy electric charges; all the quantum numbers and conservation laws of the lower energy fields plus more are always conserved for higher energies, thus to make heavy antimatter the exact type that is strong force antimatter of the same energy based on the precision of this interaction is the type that is created, a proton and and an antiproton would annihilate by weigh of the strong force being mirrored by way of the electric field. The control of heavy matter and antimatter annihilation would not be superficial to the electric field because the heavy antimatter itself is mediated by way of the electric field, this would in truth perhaps be the mechanism of confinement, going through the lower energy field where relativity holds to reach the higher energy. This would be why there are other combinations of the fractional charges possible that aren't seen, with heavy particles of resulting fractional charge always caused to be of 1 or -1 because of the necessity of the mediation by way of special relativity always being conserved with the speed of light constant at lower power.
An electron is light and a proton is heavy, why not the other way around, why not a + light particle and a heavy -? A heavy negative stable particle seems possible, though it would much change some atomic and most chemical reactions. The main reason the proton is mostly stable as known may be not because of the weak force, the strong force or electromagnetism alone; these forces are the same as for other mesons and the rest of the heavy particles. I think the stability here is caused instead by the threeness of the fractional charges at the lowest energy of the baryons, this seems to be what’s the most unusual about the proton. The three fractional charges would take more power to cause reactions than the rest of the heavy particles. It’s well established that reactions always go slower if the particle has to flip to another, as I say on this page, my complete proton confinement/stability site with more about this.
The proton’s stability thus seems positive, but only because it’s at the right energy to be stable, not because of any fundamental connection with conservation of electric charge. There are lots of negative heavy particles that aren’t stable, that none of them may be so because there is only the stable proton, which turns out to be positive by resonation with just that positive field there at that energy may just be coincidence. I believe the proton is stable because it has three charges, and is coincidentally positive, but the three charges are caused by it being at that energy level of the wheel rotation in 1000 light years. There could indeed have been a stable heavy negative particle if it were not the same mass as the proton for stability.
Here too even if the stable heavy particle was negative, it would need to have another rest mass than the proton for stability. All energy conservation is based on action reaction pairs, if all is in balance all motion would stop, if you press two weights on the Mazda and lift with force, the car will stay higher while you seal the wheels, even so if it dropped on the station, Ouch! For all to be in motion, the two action reaction pairs need to be unlike, mass and energy, so in GWD the mass energy asymmetry is deeper than relativity.
Monopoles are related to the fundamental necessity for all particles to have angular momentum. All known mass flows through time, the spins would be like small clocks, particles have poles when they spin, thus a monopole is tougher to create than a mere negative bubble of the field. The monopole asymmetry may be a more exact asymmetry based on geometry than matter and antimatter, after all leptons aren’t the opposite of heavy particles, the scale of rest mass of the mesons and leptons and other headlights of the speed of light rest in subatomic physics is continuous. If there were always more energy for more mass by the discontinuous quanta of Emc2 instead of the more general F=ma we would expect that much more antimatter always. In other science, life as in evolution is not about exact opposites, rather more small changes in large numbers.
Dirac’s original conception of matter was a large lower energy level where all the mass was and a higher energy negative “sea” of unoccupied states for the antimatter. Why only one sea mostly not two would be because of the lower energy “sea” being held together by the general cohesion of the field, gravity. The lowest energy field to conserve energy in general has to be implosive because if it were in radiance more than cohesion all the mass of the universe would have fizzled out to 0 density. Lack of cohesion causes instability because by what seems to be the mere energy energy equivalence of SR, no mass is more at rest or in motion, even while gravity is less privileged for the earth than the sun, and less privileged for the moon than the earth by rate of fall. Relativity with no definite place of rest like matter and antimatter would seem inherently unstable, so antimatter’s rarity would be against the complete proof of relativity. Neither Newton or Einstein believed that being at rest in the field of the earth was more fundamental than uniform motion, but those with common knowledge often would remark when work is done, labor is more powerful than rest. As evolution holds, the most behaviour of worth is what creates the most real change. If the low energy field is always flexing and holding the higher fields of the mesons and other light and heavy particles together and work is always being achieved, the most natural way is for the main central flow of the energy to be with more work done by change, not energy to energy, energy to mass. (It’s also much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and this would be expected if SR were more superficial than GWD.)
The needed cohesion of the fields would hold the main low energy sea in a central river of flow of the field, mass to energy or energy to mass, but not energy to energy as often. We might indeed think of the central flow of the mass and energy of the particles and forces as the flow of a river, and antimatter as a more rare shore that’s not so easy to reach mostly because it doesn’t flow uphill either. Hold on, You may say, about information and the web to those in complexity math believe that any computer with enough time can solve any problem. If the fields are like a river and a bank this seems like the orbit of the Earth in the old days tough to reach by airplane, but not impossible either. Sooner or later our efficiency at creating antimatter, like cost of payload per pound, may be so much cheaper with improved machines so much that GWD will fail, and (almost) as much matter as antimatter may be created. That certainly seems to be untrue now, because the cost of making antimatter by current methods is estimated at quadrillions to make a gram.
As I say it seems much more that our life was 99% evolved on the land of the world, and while orbit is easy to reach, we won’t live up there for months or year round and around! The cost of living in a space station is estimated to be a million per capita and as it is an explosion caused by a piece of paint could slow the space program’s advance by 25 years, for essentially the same reason about the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in GWD, about efficiency.
Thus antimatter would seem to be limited like travel to Mars by general limits of physics. Here in 2010 we go to orbit as often as we like (within limits) so we may be able to make lots of antimatter, like boosting to orbit, by building tubes (or elevators to orbit) to pump the water from the river to the higher shore. If we could make the tube and pump efficient, perhaps using waves like solitions that don’t lose much energy as they pump the matter into antimatter in the tube, we might be able to create large amounts of it cheaper. And as you see on this site this has recently been patented, with the resonance in the tube being as predicted to “create antimatter from matter with “mere heat”. This will save millions on the cost of using “atom smashers” which cost because among other things they are competing with other uses of the machines to take time making the stuff.
Even as matter is not the same as energy and matter and antimatter are not perhaps equivalent by the slight changes even in SR where the average agreements on the speed of light of many observers will give general agreement about who is at rest or in motion if the history of all the observers are included, we might expect small changes even in matter and antimatter not seen in SR. I believe matter and antimatter in accordance with the distinction of the heavy oneness and many reradiance of GWD might have slight changes in spin not seen in SR, and because creation of matter and antimatter is an energy energy conversion, not matter to matter, the lower energy antiparticles like the positron, being with a lower energy quantum well, would convert the electron to a positron more easily than say a proton to an antiproton. and the rate of decay of an antineutron to an antiproton and positron to be at a somewhat different rate than the matter equivalent.
Antiatoms have much more volatile reactions with matter than mere positrons when they annihilate with electrons. As we would expect if mass and energy is asymmetrical and SR is not the most general, the lighter positron and electron is easier to create and destroy without much labor than the heavier proton and antiproton. If mass and energy were the same, all there was would have the same mass and energy. All particles would have the same mass and the rate of fall on the moon and earth would be the same, and so on. This is my “literal” definition of relativity.
Relativity is a profound idea. A world of complete democracy where all are created equal even so seems uncommon sense without the boss of gravity or king acceleration to optimize. If labor is so worthwhile why would we rest? I believe the small distinctions of matter and antimatter being about the energy energy equivalence of SR would only be in accord with the degree to which observers in SR can find who is actually more at rest or in motion by keeping track of the redshift of all the observers, all with lower redshift observers and higher mass are moving slower by way of conservation of angular and linear flow of the field and the rest are moving faster. By way of the information found by way of the light about who is with acceleration, even in SR with the equal redshift for both the accelerating observer and the slower observer, we have a way to know who is at rest or in motion, as we would expect if SR is incomplete. The more observers with lower redshift and without acceleration, the more probable they're at rest.
Another way of expressing the same idea is that a hill like matter is not exactly the size of the hole where the stuff was removed ("antimatter") from when you dig with your shovel in a field of gravity. The Earth is rounder on the outside and has more room here! There are both mountains and ocean depths but the oceans are generally deeper. Thus the effects like slower rate of radioactivity could be more pronounced with stronger electric or magnetic fields which also have their attractive component (derived from the basic lower energy field.) Relativity is about empty space time, not electromagnetism, so this could be a proof of GWD not relativity.
..
Monday, September 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)