Yet another concept that puzzles me is the thought that it would take 'infinite energy' to accelerate a mass-bearing object to the speed of light, and that the mass of that object increases with its speed. We have to be careful in our examinations here, because examining the behaviour of objects between themselves is not at all the same as observing the physics of an object itself. According to relativity, every state of reference has equal value. That is to say any object travelling at any 'speed' can be at a state of rest; whether one object is 'moving' or not (is irrelevant) only comes into question if it is compared to another.
A star all alone in space will shed its light at speeds only relative to itself; without anyone to observe it, it would have no idea (combustion, fusion, etc) that it is moving. The same goes for its gravitational force and mass. If somehow we could push and pull the star to different speeds, no matter what point we stopped our alterations and left the star to its own devices, it would continue as before, standing seemingly still and alone in space. No matter at what 'speed' the star was travelling, its mass would remain the same - the force we needed to move it was expended in moving the star, no energy given to the star itself.
Now, another star enters the picture, hurtling towards the first. How would we calculate what will happen when the stars collide? It his here that the idea of 'mass' becomes confusing, and the word 'inertia' comes to mind. Yet if the mass of each object is the calculated same, from where comes the energy created when the two giants collide?
It was perhaps a bad idea to use stars as an example; one has both to calculate the energy contained within the star's atoms themselves, as well as relative velocity. Let's go instead to the opposite end of the spectrum and compare the energies contained in two converging light waves.
The speed of light, c, is indeed a constant, and I am persuaded that it should be a yardstick by which to measure the interactivity of all energy - I especially like the idea of giving it the constant of 1. Anyhow, an electromagnetic wave (always travelling at light speed relative to itself) will have an x amount of energy (its frequency) - should we assume that they are following 'normal' patterns (within the realm of the laws we have created until today), they both should be travelling at c, and their interaction should be relatively easy to predict. Not much would happen between two photons, but let's compare their energies relative to each other.
Say two photons were zipping in opposite directions of, say, 10¹⁸mhz (x-rays). Since their direction is opposing, it would seem to one photon that the other was travelling by at, not only twice its speed, but twice its frequency. Photons have no polarity, as far as I know, so there is little chance of them annihilating each other - I used photons just for the speed/frequency comparison example.
Imagine then the force between two mass-bearing objects, say, electrons - but the math gets fuzzier here when we consider that we have to calculate the 'kinetic force' for each object (in my opinion, things would be simpler if we calculated one 'k' value between the two), and the laws seem to change when speeds near light speed c. Anyhow, you get the picture. Add into the equation the force needed to break each particle (when we get up the scale to nuclei and individual hadrons) and things get really complicated.
I'd like to stay at the electromagnetic wave level for an instant, and go back to my earlier idea about what happens when a lightwave's amplitude nears its forward momentum. Exactly how much energy is contained within an electron? Imagine that it is in fact a wave pattern itself - orbital, or stagnant? - any electromagnetic wave interaction with it would amplify its (already enormous) frequency, but a photon (as far as I know) wouldn't have the power to 'break' it (unless the photon was travelling at a speed superior to light speed? But I digress) - already modern physics has concrete proof that a photon will indeed 'excite' an electron into a higher orbit.
So what, again, of quarks, and why is their 'charge' (-1/3 and 2/3 for 'down' quarks and 'up' quarks respectively) at odds with electrons (which have a -1 charge), and why do quarks bind into hadrons (two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark for a proton, the opposite for a Neutron), and why do 'down' quarks have more 'mass' (despite their 'puny' -1/3 charge) ...and what is that particle 'charge'? Are positive elementary particles circular waveforms orbiting 'forward' (at super-high frequencies) in one (clockwise?) direction, and negative particles the same in the opposite direction? How would such waveforms, if they existed, interact? What if gravity was the force maintaining an electromagnetic wave to its path, wouldn't it be much greater (if not amplified) when maintained in a circular path, and could magnetism simply be an 'amplified gravity' caused by the synchronisation of these waves? If everything were interacting waveforms, that would explain so much about the binding and energy levels of the elementary particles known to us. I have so many ideas and questions remaining.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Perceptions of Light, Time Dilation (again).
I'm still puzzling over our seemingly self-imposed light-speed limitation. In an earlier post I mentioned the Victorian-era 'ether' concept, since disproven, that the entire universe was filled with a mysterious substance that limited the speed at which matter (including light) could travel. This theory (along with my 'perfect matter' idea) is officially in the trash can, but if there is no 'ether', how can we maintain that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? The limiting factor seems to be in the notion of time and 'mass increase' - but, as I mentioned earlier, it is quite possible to leave time out of the question, and even any equation, for observing physical behavioural patterns concerning light; as for mass, I will try to deal with that in a later post.
Before I get there, I'd like to ask (myself) a few more questions on light-speed, namely concerning Einstein's theory and the findings of Hubble. Einstein's relativity showed that the universe was rapidly expanding (although he himself didn't believe it), but Hubble proved it by measuring the spectrum map of light from different galaxies; Hubble recorded marked 'spectrum shifts' towards the red for the light of galaxies moving away from us, and shifts towards blue for those nearing us. Hubble's findings at first sight follow rules similar to Doppler's - a sound from a source moving towards a listener through air sounds at a higher pitch, and the sound moving away sounds lower - but here may be another (additional) explanation for the shift in the light emissions of different galaxies.
It is a known fact that the speed of light, c, is indeed a constant; it travels at the same speed no matter the frequency of its wave. My main nagging question concerns the relation between a light wave's 'speed' and the object that emits it: in a situation where a light wave's source is 'at rest' (its 'speed' is irrelevant in the absence of any other object, it is 'relative' only unto itself), if indeed there is no 'ether', shouldn't the light's speed remain constant (relative) to its source? Why do scientists insist that, when we add an observer into the equation, that the speed of a light wave (relative to its source) cannot be added/subtracted from the speed of the light source relative to the observer?
It is the "all" in "all reference frames" that bothers me. "All" reference frames... known to us thus far? Measurable by us, again, thus far? I left the second half of the quote in place for context: it just shows that, once it is emitted, light does remain at a constant speed, but I do question the effect of one's movement relative to a light source, namely in our perception of the light's frequency. I'd like to imagine for a second that light can travel faster than 'itself' (relative to 'our' frame of reference), and revisit two concepts (one mentioned above) commonly referenced in discussions on relativity.
Firstly, the above 'Doppler effect': what if, in addition to the red/blue shift caused by the (seeming) increase in frequency caused by the relative velocity between the star and the observer, an 'accelerated speed of light' did figure into the equation? Here on earth, sound is limited in velocity (by our atmosphere, a constant between the source and the observer), but if there indeed is no 'limiting ether' in space, the speed of a light source should figure in the speed of the light it emits (relative to the observer). Were this true, the spectrum shift from an approaching star would be doubly amplified, once by the source's motion relative to the wavelength of its light, and again by the speed at which it was travelling. Imagine a star travelling towards us that emits one burst of light energy in our direction. If the speed of its light is added to the speed of light itself, the frequency of the approaching beam will seem, from the observer's point of view, to be more compact (higher) than would be if both the source and observer were at a state of rest relative to each other; this also would cause a shift in the same direction as the Doppler effect, a shift that could perhaps even be multiplied by the same.
Secondly, time dilation was supposedly proven by an experiment in which the level of cosmic ray muon radiation was measured at the top of a mountain, then at a much lesser altitude; muons decay rapidly in the earth's atmosphere, yet many more made it to lower altitude than expected, and this was attributed to time dilation (time was 'slower' for the almost-light-speed travelling muons), but what if the muons, shot out from massive explosions perhaps the origin of our universe, were in fact travelling faster than light upon their arrival to earth?
Before I get there, I'd like to ask (myself) a few more questions on light-speed, namely concerning Einstein's theory and the findings of Hubble. Einstein's relativity showed that the universe was rapidly expanding (although he himself didn't believe it), but Hubble proved it by measuring the spectrum map of light from different galaxies; Hubble recorded marked 'spectrum shifts' towards the red for the light of galaxies moving away from us, and shifts towards blue for those nearing us. Hubble's findings at first sight follow rules similar to Doppler's - a sound from a source moving towards a listener through air sounds at a higher pitch, and the sound moving away sounds lower - but here may be another (additional) explanation for the shift in the light emissions of different galaxies.
It is a known fact that the speed of light, c, is indeed a constant; it travels at the same speed no matter the frequency of its wave. My main nagging question concerns the relation between a light wave's 'speed' and the object that emits it: in a situation where a light wave's source is 'at rest' (its 'speed' is irrelevant in the absence of any other object, it is 'relative' only unto itself), if indeed there is no 'ether', shouldn't the light's speed remain constant (relative) to its source? Why do scientists insist that, when we add an observer into the equation, that the speed of a light wave (relative to its source) cannot be added/subtracted from the speed of the light source relative to the observer?
Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames.
This constancy of the speed of light means, counter to intuition, that speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear faster by approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear slower by receding from the source at speed.
"Time Dilation", Wikipedia.org, 2011-02-02
It is the "all" in "all reference frames" that bothers me. "All" reference frames... known to us thus far? Measurable by us, again, thus far? I left the second half of the quote in place for context: it just shows that, once it is emitted, light does remain at a constant speed, but I do question the effect of one's movement relative to a light source, namely in our perception of the light's frequency. I'd like to imagine for a second that light can travel faster than 'itself' (relative to 'our' frame of reference), and revisit two concepts (one mentioned above) commonly referenced in discussions on relativity.
Firstly, the above 'Doppler effect': what if, in addition to the red/blue shift caused by the (seeming) increase in frequency caused by the relative velocity between the star and the observer, an 'accelerated speed of light' did figure into the equation? Here on earth, sound is limited in velocity (by our atmosphere, a constant between the source and the observer), but if there indeed is no 'limiting ether' in space, the speed of a light source should figure in the speed of the light it emits (relative to the observer). Were this true, the spectrum shift from an approaching star would be doubly amplified, once by the source's motion relative to the wavelength of its light, and again by the speed at which it was travelling. Imagine a star travelling towards us that emits one burst of light energy in our direction. If the speed of its light is added to the speed of light itself, the frequency of the approaching beam will seem, from the observer's point of view, to be more compact (higher) than would be if both the source and observer were at a state of rest relative to each other; this also would cause a shift in the same direction as the Doppler effect, a shift that could perhaps even be multiplied by the same.
Secondly, time dilation was supposedly proven by an experiment in which the level of cosmic ray muon radiation was measured at the top of a mountain, then at a much lesser altitude; muons decay rapidly in the earth's atmosphere, yet many more made it to lower altitude than expected, and this was attributed to time dilation (time was 'slower' for the almost-light-speed travelling muons), but what if the muons, shot out from massive explosions perhaps the origin of our universe, were in fact travelling faster than light upon their arrival to earth?
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
c : an obstacle of our own conception?
I'm tempted to toss my 'perfect matter' concept into the trash. After further reading, it seems my idea was just an embellished version of the Victorian-era "ether" concept: light can only move so fast, no matter where it is, because it is limited by an omnipresent 'substance'. Einstein theorised that there is no 'ether', and scientific experiments are beginning to prove him right. So I'm going to put 'perfect matter' to the side for now and play with the behaviour of light in an ether-less environment.
I must admit that it was difficult to wrap my layman head around the idea of 'no barriers'. My reading (and watching, thanks to an online friend of mine who will know who he is should he read this) involved many presentations involving metre sticks, clocks, pythagorean triangulation and space travel - or in other words, 'time dilation'. I get the concept, but there's something about the theory's point of view, if not its motivation, that bothers me.
The base of Einstein's concept is: light always travels at the same speed relative to the observer. He explained his theory, in a thought experiment sometimes called "Einstein's mirror", by imagining himself in a train travelling at a speed of light while looking at a mirror: would he see a reflection? His conclusion was 'yes'.
The most common presentation explaining relativity I saw was one involving two parallel mirrors and the behaviour of light between them if one was moving. True, the beam of light between the originating mirror at its beginning state, the 'immobile' mirror and the originating mirror at its end state is 'longer' than a line between two immobile mirrors, but scientists have seemed to conclude that, since there is no speed faster than light, it must be time that is changing. Something bothers me about this - to no end.
It was the 'speed relative to the viewer' part that intrigued me the most, and I went to bed with my thoughts full of spaceships, trains and mirrors. If I were (in bed) watching Einstein speeding away from me on a light-speed travelling train with a mirror in front of his face, with himself still able to see his own reflection because light was being reflected relative to his own position and speed, what would be the speed of his reflection according to me? My repeated conclusion was: his reflection, at least in the light being sent towards his mirror, would have to be travelling twice the speed of light. But nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (according to 'our' point of origin), right? If relativity really does hold true, wrong.
If I reduce the Einstein mirror example to two stars hurtling away from each other at light speed (which one is 'still' is irrelevant), the photons emitted from opposing sides of the stars at any given point of time would be travelling three times the speed of light relative to each other. Yet modern physics insists on adding time into the equation, and tells us that it is time that is changing, not the light speed. Either I am missing something, or there is so much wrong with this.
The obstacle we are facing is our own concept of 'light speed' and use of 'light year' in our calculations. If light is indeed an independent electromagnetic wave that always travels at the same speed from its point of origin, and if that 'point of origin' can be travelling at any speed at all, what is there to say that travel of light speed 'is not possible'? The problem here is that although we have no measure above the speed of light with which to compare things, that doesn't mean that anything beyond the limit of our measure can't exist. From our present point of observation, in a universe that originated most probably at the same point in time, we just can't see it, or haven't seen it yet.
To take this thought to its full extent, imagine a space ship accelerating away from earth (to some unknown destination). From a point of rest near earth, imagine that it maintains a continued state of acceleration (let's leave time out of the equation for now) and that it achieves the speed of light. Now, let's imagine the environment in and around that spacecraft at that precise point in time.
First off, what is that 'speed of light' velocity the spaceship is at? That 'speed' is measured relative to its, or our own, point of rest. If relativity holds true, and there is no limiting 'ether', any physical phenomena created by that spaceship at that speed would have that speed and position as its point of origin; for the calculation of any physical occurrences on that spacecraft, our position or point of reference doesn't matter to any equation of events onboard. A nuclear reaction on that spaceship would occur exactly in the same way as it would on earth (if the spaceship somehow had a 'false gravity' equalling earths), and any outward-going force, such as thrust (into a vacuum), should react in the same way at its speed as it would in ours. All anyone onboard would feel is the force of the ship's acceleration - in fact, without any point of reference to see outside of the ship's porthole, they would have no idea at all about the speed at which they were travelling; should the ship shut down its engines, with no drag to slow it down, it would maintain its 'velocity' (in relation to 'us'), yet it would seem to those onboard that the ship was at a total standstill. If the core idea behind relativity holds true, it can't be any other way.
Our problem today is that we are using the speed of light as a barrier in addition to its use as a unit of measure. Just because we have not yet been able to accelerate any object near/past the speed of light doesn't mean it's not possible; once we do make it there, any electromagnetic wave phenomena we create at that velocity will occur, if we still insist on using ourselves as a point of reference, at twice the speed of light in the direction away from us.
The reason we remain stuck in this reasoning is probably a) the universe itself has a single point of origin (the Big Bang), and everything we see is 'relative' to that moment; b) all the universe's mass, and what little of it we have been able to move ourselves, moves at a speed only a fraction that of the speed of light. Still, according to relativity, the light shining forward from a projected "flashlight bullet" should travel at a velocity to its own (light speed) plus the bullet's velocity at the time it was emitted. Even a bullet's speed is minuscule compared to that of light: I wonder if today we have the tools to test this sort of theory.
So, to sum up: just because we ourselves are unable to see or measure any velocity above or relatively close to the speed of light (velocities created outside our, or the big bang's, point of reference), doesn't mean that nothing beyond hasn't, won't, or can't, occur. I don't yet understand the motivation behind the mathematical acrobatics of 'time dilation' just to preserve a threshold at/below the speed of light; were we to maintain time as a constant in both sides of its equation, or remove it entirely, the result would be a speed faster than the speed of light - or the speed of light plus the 'terminal speed' of the mirror capturing the returning light ray, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
'Bending time' is much like trying to measure a rod with a shorter string by bending it; if the string is our largest known velocity (the speed of light) and the rod the real velocity, than that rod has a velocity is greater than any we know or greater than any we can measurably create today, and I don't see any reason why we can't just accept this.
Yet this is not an easy subject, and I am still reading into it.
I must admit that it was difficult to wrap my layman head around the idea of 'no barriers'. My reading (and watching, thanks to an online friend of mine who will know who he is should he read this) involved many presentations involving metre sticks, clocks, pythagorean triangulation and space travel - or in other words, 'time dilation'. I get the concept, but there's something about the theory's point of view, if not its motivation, that bothers me.
The base of Einstein's concept is: light always travels at the same speed relative to the observer. He explained his theory, in a thought experiment sometimes called "Einstein's mirror", by imagining himself in a train travelling at a speed of light while looking at a mirror: would he see a reflection? His conclusion was 'yes'.
The most common presentation explaining relativity I saw was one involving two parallel mirrors and the behaviour of light between them if one was moving. True, the beam of light between the originating mirror at its beginning state, the 'immobile' mirror and the originating mirror at its end state is 'longer' than a line between two immobile mirrors, but scientists have seemed to conclude that, since there is no speed faster than light, it must be time that is changing. Something bothers me about this - to no end.
It was the 'speed relative to the viewer' part that intrigued me the most, and I went to bed with my thoughts full of spaceships, trains and mirrors. If I were (in bed) watching Einstein speeding away from me on a light-speed travelling train with a mirror in front of his face, with himself still able to see his own reflection because light was being reflected relative to his own position and speed, what would be the speed of his reflection according to me? My repeated conclusion was: his reflection, at least in the light being sent towards his mirror, would have to be travelling twice the speed of light. But nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (according to 'our' point of origin), right? If relativity really does hold true, wrong.
If I reduce the Einstein mirror example to two stars hurtling away from each other at light speed (which one is 'still' is irrelevant), the photons emitted from opposing sides of the stars at any given point of time would be travelling three times the speed of light relative to each other. Yet modern physics insists on adding time into the equation, and tells us that it is time that is changing, not the light speed. Either I am missing something, or there is so much wrong with this.
The obstacle we are facing is our own concept of 'light speed' and use of 'light year' in our calculations. If light is indeed an independent electromagnetic wave that always travels at the same speed from its point of origin, and if that 'point of origin' can be travelling at any speed at all, what is there to say that travel of light speed 'is not possible'? The problem here is that although we have no measure above the speed of light with which to compare things, that doesn't mean that anything beyond the limit of our measure can't exist. From our present point of observation, in a universe that originated most probably at the same point in time, we just can't see it, or haven't seen it yet.
To take this thought to its full extent, imagine a space ship accelerating away from earth (to some unknown destination). From a point of rest near earth, imagine that it maintains a continued state of acceleration (let's leave time out of the equation for now) and that it achieves the speed of light. Now, let's imagine the environment in and around that spacecraft at that precise point in time.
First off, what is that 'speed of light' velocity the spaceship is at? That 'speed' is measured relative to its, or our own, point of rest. If relativity holds true, and there is no limiting 'ether', any physical phenomena created by that spaceship at that speed would have that speed and position as its point of origin; for the calculation of any physical occurrences on that spacecraft, our position or point of reference doesn't matter to any equation of events onboard. A nuclear reaction on that spaceship would occur exactly in the same way as it would on earth (if the spaceship somehow had a 'false gravity' equalling earths), and any outward-going force, such as thrust (into a vacuum), should react in the same way at its speed as it would in ours. All anyone onboard would feel is the force of the ship's acceleration - in fact, without any point of reference to see outside of the ship's porthole, they would have no idea at all about the speed at which they were travelling; should the ship shut down its engines, with no drag to slow it down, it would maintain its 'velocity' (in relation to 'us'), yet it would seem to those onboard that the ship was at a total standstill. If the core idea behind relativity holds true, it can't be any other way.
Our problem today is that we are using the speed of light as a barrier in addition to its use as a unit of measure. Just because we have not yet been able to accelerate any object near/past the speed of light doesn't mean it's not possible; once we do make it there, any electromagnetic wave phenomena we create at that velocity will occur, if we still insist on using ourselves as a point of reference, at twice the speed of light in the direction away from us.
The reason we remain stuck in this reasoning is probably a) the universe itself has a single point of origin (the Big Bang), and everything we see is 'relative' to that moment; b) all the universe's mass, and what little of it we have been able to move ourselves, moves at a speed only a fraction that of the speed of light. Still, according to relativity, the light shining forward from a projected "flashlight bullet" should travel at a velocity to its own (light speed) plus the bullet's velocity at the time it was emitted. Even a bullet's speed is minuscule compared to that of light: I wonder if today we have the tools to test this sort of theory.
So, to sum up: just because we ourselves are unable to see or measure any velocity above or relatively close to the speed of light (velocities created outside our, or the big bang's, point of reference), doesn't mean that nothing beyond hasn't, won't, or can't, occur. I don't yet understand the motivation behind the mathematical acrobatics of 'time dilation' just to preserve a threshold at/below the speed of light; were we to maintain time as a constant in both sides of its equation, or remove it entirely, the result would be a speed faster than the speed of light - or the speed of light plus the 'terminal speed' of the mirror capturing the returning light ray, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
'Bending time' is much like trying to measure a rod with a shorter string by bending it; if the string is our largest known velocity (the speed of light) and the rod the real velocity, than that rod has a velocity is greater than any we know or greater than any we can measurably create today, and I don't see any reason why we can't just accept this.
Yet this is not an easy subject, and I am still reading into it.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Further thought on 'electromagnetic' energy waves.
I'm not so sure about the "magnetic" in the term "electromagnetic wave". For sure an energy wave is interacting with something that maintains its oscillating path.
Bloody hell. I was just reading up on the use of the electron-volt scale (meV, keV, MeV, GeV, etc) and wondering why the same was used to describe the mass of quarks, when I came across this:
Getting back to energy waves, what intrigues me most there is their oscillation - there are obviously two opposing elements at work here, otherwise energy would travel in a straight line (or not travel at all). What also intrigues me is that, no matter the energy level of a wave, the force opposing it is always exactly that of the energy transmitted. Could the opposition/attraction in energy waves be the very source of gravity itself?
The notion of "perfect matter" has its uses here as well. Imagine it as an element that would need an enormous amount of energy to overcome/affect/transform; its first reaction against any force against it would be to push back with equal force (in order to regain its initial 'perfect' state). This would describe the 'magnetic' in the behaviour of electromagnetic waves quite nicely. But I digress - it is a bit hard for me to let go of that idea after entertaining it for so long.
In my present line of thinking, it doesn't really matter what form the 'push' force has (we need only retain the energy of the perfectly visible photon), it is only the 'push/pull' phenomenon itself. If I could apply the degree/frequency of an energy wave's oscillation to the laws of gravity, we see some similarities: lower-frequency waves are much longer and higher than higher-frequency ones, or in other words, the force of interaction (push/pull) is lower - think the gravitational effect two distant planets have on each other, the greater the distance (and smaller the mass), the lower the effect and the longer it takes for the other to react in any noticeable way.
Now, if the vertical push/pull of a wave really was gravity, we can imagine that the gravitational force (always across the axis of the path of travel) will be extremely low - but what happens when an energy wave increases in frequency/energy? An increasingly energetic push/pull occurs many more times along a shorter length of axis.
Yet all across the spectrum, the forward momentum of a wave remains the same - the speed of light, or c. This brings me to my next question: what would happen if the frequency of an energy wave get so high that its lateral momentum nears/meets/exceeds its forward momentum? Could the cross-axis push/pull begin to affect/overcome an energy wave's forward momentum, making it slow, stop, or... begin to loop?
Bloody hell. I was just reading up on the use of the electron-volt scale (meV, keV, MeV, GeV, etc) and wondering why the same was used to describe the mass of quarks, when I came across this:
By mass-energy equivalence, the electron volt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often interchanged, to use eV/c2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum (from E = mc2). Even more common is to use a system of natural units with c set to 1 (hence, E = m), and simply use eV as a unit of mass.The speed of light (through a vacuum) is so constant that it would be convenient (and probably more practical) to just set it to 1. Was this just for convenience that this reduction was devised (see natural units), or are some already persuaded that energy is mass? E=m has been my entire line of thought in this post and its predecessor. Still, E=m does not describe the gravitational properties of a fundamental element.
"Electronvolt", Wikipedia.org, 2011-01-25
Getting back to energy waves, what intrigues me most there is their oscillation - there are obviously two opposing elements at work here, otherwise energy would travel in a straight line (or not travel at all). What also intrigues me is that, no matter the energy level of a wave, the force opposing it is always exactly that of the energy transmitted. Could the opposition/attraction in energy waves be the very source of gravity itself?
The notion of "perfect matter" has its uses here as well. Imagine it as an element that would need an enormous amount of energy to overcome/affect/transform; its first reaction against any force against it would be to push back with equal force (in order to regain its initial 'perfect' state). This would describe the 'magnetic' in the behaviour of electromagnetic waves quite nicely. But I digress - it is a bit hard for me to let go of that idea after entertaining it for so long.
In my present line of thinking, it doesn't really matter what form the 'push' force has (we need only retain the energy of the perfectly visible photon), it is only the 'push/pull' phenomenon itself. If I could apply the degree/frequency of an energy wave's oscillation to the laws of gravity, we see some similarities: lower-frequency waves are much longer and higher than higher-frequency ones, or in other words, the force of interaction (push/pull) is lower - think the gravitational effect two distant planets have on each other, the greater the distance (and smaller the mass), the lower the effect and the longer it takes for the other to react in any noticeable way.
Now, if the vertical push/pull of a wave really was gravity, we can imagine that the gravitational force (always across the axis of the path of travel) will be extremely low - but what happens when an energy wave increases in frequency/energy? An increasingly energetic push/pull occurs many more times along a shorter length of axis.
Yet all across the spectrum, the forward momentum of a wave remains the same - the speed of light, or c. This brings me to my next question: what would happen if the frequency of an energy wave get so high that its lateral momentum nears/meets/exceeds its forward momentum? Could the cross-axis push/pull begin to affect/overcome an energy wave's forward momentum, making it slow, stop, or... begin to loop?
Monday, 24 January 2011
Is ~everything~ light?
Something bugged me about my idea that something could go ~faster~ than the speed of light. If there is one constant in our universe, it's that speed; all energy waves, or 'light', no matter what frequency, travel with the same forward momentum through a vacuum.
This got me to thinking: what would happen if an energy wave's frequency got to a point so high that its lateral movement exceeded its forward motion? Could this energy level be the 'point of creation' of mass? Think about watching a wave on an oscilloscope, then turning the frequency knob to the right: eventually the wave's up and down motion will become indistinguishable from its lateral flow, and the 'wave' will become a solid white (green) bar. Perhaps the 'frequency = speed of light' mass-creating transition point is a bit convenient, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if things were in fact that simple.
This would explain a lot of things, namely the enormous amount of energy contained in atoms (and the enormous amount of energy it takes to fuse or dissemble them). I can also see the beginnings of an explanation of gravity and charge there; could the extreme oscillation of a wave be a source of attraction to others similar to it, and could the 'timing' of the wave explain its 'polarity'? Even this fits in with wave behaviour: opposing waves cancel each other, as do oppositely-charged similar elements such as positrons and electrons. And if indeed a mass-containing object's core energy oscillation is enormous, a 'normal' wave (such as a photon) would indeed affect it but not alter it entirely. Also, could it be that magnetism and gravity are the same thing, and that magnetism is simply an 'amplified gravity' caused by the synchronisation of every core energy wave contained in any magnetic object?
This kind of throws my 'perfect matter' theory into the dustbin, yet it is possible that 'perfect matter' does exist as a simple carrier for energy waves.
This got me to thinking: what would happen if an energy wave's frequency got to a point so high that its lateral movement exceeded its forward motion? Could this energy level be the 'point of creation' of mass? Think about watching a wave on an oscilloscope, then turning the frequency knob to the right: eventually the wave's up and down motion will become indistinguishable from its lateral flow, and the 'wave' will become a solid white (green) bar. Perhaps the 'frequency = speed of light' mass-creating transition point is a bit convenient, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if things were in fact that simple.
This would explain a lot of things, namely the enormous amount of energy contained in atoms (and the enormous amount of energy it takes to fuse or dissemble them). I can also see the beginnings of an explanation of gravity and charge there; could the extreme oscillation of a wave be a source of attraction to others similar to it, and could the 'timing' of the wave explain its 'polarity'? Even this fits in with wave behaviour: opposing waves cancel each other, as do oppositely-charged similar elements such as positrons and electrons. And if indeed a mass-containing object's core energy oscillation is enormous, a 'normal' wave (such as a photon) would indeed affect it but not alter it entirely. Also, could it be that magnetism and gravity are the same thing, and that magnetism is simply an 'amplified gravity' caused by the synchronisation of every core energy wave contained in any magnetic object?
This kind of throws my 'perfect matter' theory into the dustbin, yet it is possible that 'perfect matter' does exist as a simple carrier for energy waves.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
E=mc²: a sum of parts.
Einstein's theory of relativity, E=mc², sums up quite nicely the interoperativity of all elements known to us, but I am persuaded that, in light of the missing 'god particle', they will one day be regrouped into one side of an equation describing the creation and behaviour of mass.
I can sum up all my past blogs on the subject into this: it takes a certain amount of energy, an energy beyond the speed of light, to transform "perfect matter" into a form with mass, or a form visible to us. Any energy short of the speed of light remains just that, energy. This would explain why light has a maximum speed, the existence (and 'weight') of dark matter, and why light can travel through a vacuum: in reality, light (energy), if it is not strong enough to affect the perfect matter, will simply 'surf' through it (like light waves through water, to bring the model down to a lower scale). Light (energy) in our present theories is affected by gravity, but I am persuaded that it is actually 'perfect matter' that is affected by gravity: it is the difference in its density that deviates an energy path, again much like light bends when travelling between air and water.
Energy, or 'charge', has a 'path' - it will travel freely unless blocked by (absorbed by) an object with mass. We know already that it is possible to create elements with a negative charge (or charged with energy on an opposite path), and should opposingly-charged elements meet each other, both will disappear completely. What's left over? I am persuaded that opposingly-charged elements, when meeting, 'trade' their energies and become, once again, perfect matter. I think for this to happen the energies of both elements must be equal in opposing directions.
It would make perfect sense that the beginning of our universe was a huge explosion of energy above the speed of light in all directions (charges); once the mass was created, and the energy of the explosion dropped below mass-creating levels, any energy left over from the explosion would be absorbed by mass-containing elements. The rest is consequential: positively-charged elements would be attracted to negatively-charged elements; if their charges were equally opposed, they would annihilate each other, and if their charges weren't equal, they would bind (in a 'stable' inter-annihilation struggle). It wouldn't surprise me if electrons were simply negatively-charged quarks 'left over' from this initial binding.
The question of charge also brings, once again, dimensions into question.
I can sum up all my past blogs on the subject into this: it takes a certain amount of energy, an energy beyond the speed of light, to transform "perfect matter" into a form with mass, or a form visible to us. Any energy short of the speed of light remains just that, energy. This would explain why light has a maximum speed, the existence (and 'weight') of dark matter, and why light can travel through a vacuum: in reality, light (energy), if it is not strong enough to affect the perfect matter, will simply 'surf' through it (like light waves through water, to bring the model down to a lower scale). Light (energy) in our present theories is affected by gravity, but I am persuaded that it is actually 'perfect matter' that is affected by gravity: it is the difference in its density that deviates an energy path, again much like light bends when travelling between air and water.
Energy, or 'charge', has a 'path' - it will travel freely unless blocked by (absorbed by) an object with mass. We know already that it is possible to create elements with a negative charge (or charged with energy on an opposite path), and should opposingly-charged elements meet each other, both will disappear completely. What's left over? I am persuaded that opposingly-charged elements, when meeting, 'trade' their energies and become, once again, perfect matter. I think for this to happen the energies of both elements must be equal in opposing directions.
It would make perfect sense that the beginning of our universe was a huge explosion of energy above the speed of light in all directions (charges); once the mass was created, and the energy of the explosion dropped below mass-creating levels, any energy left over from the explosion would be absorbed by mass-containing elements. The rest is consequential: positively-charged elements would be attracted to negatively-charged elements; if their charges were equally opposed, they would annihilate each other, and if their charges weren't equal, they would bind (in a 'stable' inter-annihilation struggle). It wouldn't surprise me if electrons were simply negatively-charged quarks 'left over' from this initial binding.
The question of charge also brings, once again, dimensions into question.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Olbermann's departure from MSNBC: one more Step towards Stupid.
Of course I was surprised and dismayed this morning to hear MSNBC's Keith Olbermann announce that his Friday show would be the last one. I sometimes found him to be a bit over-the-top on some subjects and comments, but he is one of few American journalists remaining today who hold true to the principles of journalism - relating fact-based (not opinion-based) stories in an objective a way as possible. He, like MSNBC's other leading journalists, judged acts at their face value, and only then by their motivations, and would pull no punches for any politician, right or left, if his/her actions were worthy of criticism - and exactly the same in the opposite direction for any action worthy of praise. This is how journalism should be, and Mr. Olbermann is (was?) one of the rational world's last bastions against the immature screeching, whining and lying tactics used by today's political right.
I remember, after George W. Bush's 2004 re-election, an English tabloid headline querying its readers: "Is more than half the U.S. completely stupid?". I don't agree, but I can observe that the more strident and misleading opinions get about just as much airtime as fact, and that the more irrational and extreme the views of a voter, the higher the possibility that he will turn up at the polls. Yet as of today we have one less mainstream figure providing fact to the masses - as fact - and convince them to decide for themselves. Billo, Beck, Rush and Breitbart must be creaming their jeans about now at the thought of a future where even the wildest lies will go uncontested.
The right-wing pundits I mention above, unlike their viewers/listeners, cannot claim the innocence of pure stupidity. At best, they can plead guilty to one of two crimes: they can a) claim purposeful ignorance - ignorance of the true obstacles confronting the majority of the U.S.' population today (already-over-demanding job positions disappearing overseas, lack of even basic health-care for some) because of their already-prosperous position, and promoting other prosperous pundits/politicians/organisations 'like themselves', or b) be corporate-serving corporate-riches-seeking stooges spreading corporate-enriching lies to the very same knowingly-ignorant populace that is enriching the same. Beck and Breitbart are of the latter category - fully aware of their actions and the damages they cause - and in my mind are humans of the most despicable sort - those who wilfully impede and destroy the very essence of what makes us human: fact-(science-)based education and rationality.
Humans think, animals 'feel'. Thinking humans have less tendency to resort to vitriol and violence, a fact that is both true common knowledge and available everywhere, and are less likely to react with the same tactics the same. Yet the trend for today's American public seems to be pundits and politicians, backed by corporations intent on spreading a 'feeling' message to a public remaining dependant upon them because their thoughtless 'feeling' of fear or comfort, behaving in belligerent and irrational manner quite unsuited to a thinking human being. In my mind, watching American politics is like watching a grade-school play-yard: the bullies win out over 'the wimps' in the beginning, but settle down when they are obliged to compete in situations that require rational thought; but what if the U.S.' richest denizens' goal was to create and fund wave after wave of bullies, and make sure the stage was permanently set in a way where no rational thought was 'required' and could never compete? Keith Olbermann was like that big kid a couple grades up who would protect any younger kid he thought 'cool' against gratuitous persecution - and we're going to miss him dearly.
Let's hope Mr. Olbermann finds another post from where he can spread his arguably-over-the-top manner in his unarguably fact-oriented way. I also hope that Mr. Olbermann's departure won't weaken the positions of his co-journalists Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and recently-arrived Lawrence O'Donnell, three more rational voices much-needed by the U.S. public today.
I remember, after George W. Bush's 2004 re-election, an English tabloid headline querying its readers: "Is more than half the U.S. completely stupid?". I don't agree, but I can observe that the more strident and misleading opinions get about just as much airtime as fact, and that the more irrational and extreme the views of a voter, the higher the possibility that he will turn up at the polls. Yet as of today we have one less mainstream figure providing fact to the masses - as fact - and convince them to decide for themselves. Billo, Beck, Rush and Breitbart must be creaming their jeans about now at the thought of a future where even the wildest lies will go uncontested.
The right-wing pundits I mention above, unlike their viewers/listeners, cannot claim the innocence of pure stupidity. At best, they can plead guilty to one of two crimes: they can a) claim purposeful ignorance - ignorance of the true obstacles confronting the majority of the U.S.' population today (already-over-demanding job positions disappearing overseas, lack of even basic health-care for some) because of their already-prosperous position, and promoting other prosperous pundits/politicians/organisations 'like themselves', or b) be corporate-serving corporate-riches-seeking stooges spreading corporate-enriching lies to the very same knowingly-ignorant populace that is enriching the same. Beck and Breitbart are of the latter category - fully aware of their actions and the damages they cause - and in my mind are humans of the most despicable sort - those who wilfully impede and destroy the very essence of what makes us human: fact-(science-)based education and rationality.
Humans think, animals 'feel'. Thinking humans have less tendency to resort to vitriol and violence, a fact that is both true common knowledge and available everywhere, and are less likely to react with the same tactics the same. Yet the trend for today's American public seems to be pundits and politicians, backed by corporations intent on spreading a 'feeling' message to a public remaining dependant upon them because their thoughtless 'feeling' of fear or comfort, behaving in belligerent and irrational manner quite unsuited to a thinking human being. In my mind, watching American politics is like watching a grade-school play-yard: the bullies win out over 'the wimps' in the beginning, but settle down when they are obliged to compete in situations that require rational thought; but what if the U.S.' richest denizens' goal was to create and fund wave after wave of bullies, and make sure the stage was permanently set in a way where no rational thought was 'required' and could never compete? Keith Olbermann was like that big kid a couple grades up who would protect any younger kid he thought 'cool' against gratuitous persecution - and we're going to miss him dearly.
Let's hope Mr. Olbermann finds another post from where he can spread his arguably-over-the-top manner in his unarguably fact-oriented way. I also hope that Mr. Olbermann's departure won't weaken the positions of his co-journalists Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and recently-arrived Lawrence O'Donnell, three more rational voices much-needed by the U.S. public today.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
The 'Charge Balance' of grouped particles; the Speed of Light
Two questions remain in my mind: how can we explain the charge level, polarity and spin of already-grouped and/or stable fundamental particles (Hadrons and Leptons)? I'd also like to reconsider the 'speed of light'.
For the first question, there seems to be a constant between the spin of Quarks and Leptons - all forms of both have a 1/2 (positive?) spin. Quarks group in threes, and all forms ('volumes') of quark have either a -1/3 or +2/3 charge. Charged Leptons (namely electrons) have a -1 charge. Why this constant? I wouldn't be surprised if, in the beginnings of the universe, there was a large disparity in the charge level of each particle, and that this constant occurred only after quarks grouped into Hadrons; if Hydrogen was indeed the first atom to form in our universe, two positively-charged 'up' quarks bonded with one negatively-charged ('down') quark; once a Hadron was created (if quarks containing opposing but equal charges didn't annihilate each other first), any energy beyond a combined 'level of stability' would be expelled. Consequentially, once the quark bond was complete, the 'binding force' of the stable Hadron would reject a collision with any gamma or beta particles with a charge below a certain energy level. It would be interesting to calculate the total energy contained in all Quarks and Leptons - would they 'balance out' between the negative and positive? In a stable hydrogen atom, containing two +2/3 charged 'up' quarks, one -1/3 charged 'down' quark and one -1 charged electron, the result is zero. In a Helium atom, whose Hadrons (two Protons, two Neutrons) are composed of six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, and two electrons, the result is... zero. Interesting. Or was the math based on the fact?
As a side note, I'm not so sure that this 'charge constant' is so constant: this could explain why atoms towards the bottom of the periodic table are the least stable: a single slight imbalance in a hydrogen atom may not disturb the solidity of its nucleus, but an accumulation of slight imbalances in an atom with a (much) higher atomic number may push its 'energy envelope' (the energy needed for either nuclear fusion or fission) in one direction or another.
My second question concerns the speed of light. This speed has become a constant that is used in many quantum mechanics calculations, but in trying to avoid sounding pompous about it, I'd like to express some doubt about how this number is often used. I know that it is the 'fastest' known speed in the known universe, but what if, instead of treating the travel rate of gamma particles as a 'speed', we treat it as a behaviour: what if the upper extremity of energy known to us was a barrier, an energy level that, if surpassed, would result in a) the absorption of that energy (by some unknown ('perfect state'?) matter) or b) the creation of a new, mass-and-charge-bearing particle? In short, I think that, by using the speed of light to try to discover the 'base states' of quantum physics, we are limiting ourselves - or in other words, hurdling ourselves against a barrier of our own making.
For the first question, there seems to be a constant between the spin of Quarks and Leptons - all forms of both have a 1/2 (positive?) spin. Quarks group in threes, and all forms ('volumes') of quark have either a -1/3 or +2/3 charge. Charged Leptons (namely electrons) have a -1 charge. Why this constant? I wouldn't be surprised if, in the beginnings of the universe, there was a large disparity in the charge level of each particle, and that this constant occurred only after quarks grouped into Hadrons; if Hydrogen was indeed the first atom to form in our universe, two positively-charged 'up' quarks bonded with one negatively-charged ('down') quark; once a Hadron was created (if quarks containing opposing but equal charges didn't annihilate each other first), any energy beyond a combined 'level of stability' would be expelled. Consequentially, once the quark bond was complete, the 'binding force' of the stable Hadron would reject a collision with any gamma or beta particles with a charge below a certain energy level. It would be interesting to calculate the total energy contained in all Quarks and Leptons - would they 'balance out' between the negative and positive? In a stable hydrogen atom, containing two +2/3 charged 'up' quarks, one -1/3 charged 'down' quark and one -1 charged electron, the result is zero. In a Helium atom, whose Hadrons (two Protons, two Neutrons) are composed of six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, and two electrons, the result is... zero. Interesting. Or was the math based on the fact?
As a side note, I'm not so sure that this 'charge constant' is so constant: this could explain why atoms towards the bottom of the periodic table are the least stable: a single slight imbalance in a hydrogen atom may not disturb the solidity of its nucleus, but an accumulation of slight imbalances in an atom with a (much) higher atomic number may push its 'energy envelope' (the energy needed for either nuclear fusion or fission) in one direction or another.
My second question concerns the speed of light. This speed has become a constant that is used in many quantum mechanics calculations, but in trying to avoid sounding pompous about it, I'd like to express some doubt about how this number is often used. I know that it is the 'fastest' known speed in the known universe, but what if, instead of treating the travel rate of gamma particles as a 'speed', we treat it as a behaviour: what if the upper extremity of energy known to us was a barrier, an energy level that, if surpassed, would result in a) the absorption of that energy (by some unknown ('perfect state'?) matter) or b) the creation of a new, mass-and-charge-bearing particle? In short, I think that, by using the speed of light to try to discover the 'base states' of quantum physics, we are limiting ourselves - or in other words, hurdling ourselves against a barrier of our own making.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Positive and Negative charge in Particles
I'm still a bit flummoxed over the concept of positive and negative charges in the elementary particles known to us - they seem to maintain a mass-containing 'state'. It's not the elementary particle's qualities themselves that has me thinking, but rather their reaction to each other.
If one takes one of our most basic elementary particles, the quark, one can see that it never remains in an independent state for any length of time, but rather is absorbed by another element, or combines with other 'free' quarks to create a Hadron (Neutron or Proton).
When one examines the grouping of Hadrons, one can see that they either contain two 'up' quarks (+2/3 charge) and one 'down' quark (-1/3 charge) as a Proton, or the opposite (two 'down' quarks and one 'up' quark) as a Neutron. First off, one notices that the higher the charge, the less the mass - Protons have half the mass of Neutrons. Examined individually, we see that the combined charge of each element 'balances' into two different states (a Proton = (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 1; a Neutron = (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 0). The 'binding force' between oppositely-charged quarks is probably generated by each element's effort to annihilate each other, or 'draw' from its neighbouring quark's opposing charge, but lacking the power to do so (the elements must have the same opposing charge to annihilate each other), they simply bind. If the charges of two elementary particles are not equal, I am persuaded that the 'binding force' is generated by the 'overlap' between the charges - the 'up' quark would 'suck' an excess 1/3 charge beyond the charge of a neighbouring 'down' quark, and the -1/3 'down' quark can only 'suck' 1/3 of the charge of a neighbouring 'up' quark (if the two could annihilate each other, a +1/3 charge quark (inexistent in our universe) and a -1/3 quark ('down' quark) would remain). So two 'similar' quarks are in an eternal inter-annihilation battle, but it takes three to attain the balanced 'states' we know as Neutrons and Protons.
Moving one step further, a positively-charged Proton (+1 charge) attracts a negatively-charged electron (-1 charge), which would result in an atom (hydrogen) that has a 0 charge through the sum of its parts. The most common Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons) would have a sum charge of 0 also (six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, two electrons). The most stable form of Lithium atom (7L) has 3 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons resulting in an overall charge of 0... but it is in itself an unstable element (because of the ten 'up' quarks (+6 2/3 charge) fighting 11 'down' quarks (-3 2/3 charge))? It would be interesting to follow this up the periodic table.
Questions remaining: above I have reflected upon the behaviour of the most common quark 'flavours', but there exist quarks with higher mass than 'up' and 'down' quarks: 'charm' and 'top' quarks are identical to 'up' quarks in their charge and spin, but they have much greater mass - could this be a difference in the volume of 'neutral state matter' affected by a charge? Also, what of the 'spin' of elementary particles? All save Bosons (energies - eg. Photons) have spin. Could it be possible that a spin put on 'neutral state matter' is enough to transform it into a different (but 'neutral charge') discernible element (a neutrino) having some mass?
The constant I see through all the above is a 'state of balance' - elementary particles of all sorts seem be trying to attain a 'level of zero' state (with or without charge). Only elements with opposing factors can annihilate each other (the opposing 'spins' of neutrinos/antineutrinos cancel each other, the opposing charge of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen atoms cancel each other (leaving neutrinos, if their spin is in the same direction?)).
If one takes one of our most basic elementary particles, the quark, one can see that it never remains in an independent state for any length of time, but rather is absorbed by another element, or combines with other 'free' quarks to create a Hadron (Neutron or Proton).
When one examines the grouping of Hadrons, one can see that they either contain two 'up' quarks (+2/3 charge) and one 'down' quark (-1/3 charge) as a Proton, or the opposite (two 'down' quarks and one 'up' quark) as a Neutron. First off, one notices that the higher the charge, the less the mass - Protons have half the mass of Neutrons. Examined individually, we see that the combined charge of each element 'balances' into two different states (a Proton = (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 1; a Neutron = (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 0). The 'binding force' between oppositely-charged quarks is probably generated by each element's effort to annihilate each other, or 'draw' from its neighbouring quark's opposing charge, but lacking the power to do so (the elements must have the same opposing charge to annihilate each other), they simply bind. If the charges of two elementary particles are not equal, I am persuaded that the 'binding force' is generated by the 'overlap' between the charges - the 'up' quark would 'suck' an excess 1/3 charge beyond the charge of a neighbouring 'down' quark, and the -1/3 'down' quark can only 'suck' 1/3 of the charge of a neighbouring 'up' quark (if the two could annihilate each other, a +1/3 charge quark (inexistent in our universe) and a -1/3 quark ('down' quark) would remain). So two 'similar' quarks are in an eternal inter-annihilation battle, but it takes three to attain the balanced 'states' we know as Neutrons and Protons.
Moving one step further, a positively-charged Proton (+1 charge) attracts a negatively-charged electron (-1 charge), which would result in an atom (hydrogen) that has a 0 charge through the sum of its parts. The most common Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons) would have a sum charge of 0 also (six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, two electrons). The most stable form of Lithium atom (7L) has 3 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons resulting in an overall charge of 0... but it is in itself an unstable element (because of the ten 'up' quarks (+6 2/3 charge) fighting 11 'down' quarks (-3 2/3 charge))? It would be interesting to follow this up the periodic table.
Questions remaining: above I have reflected upon the behaviour of the most common quark 'flavours', but there exist quarks with higher mass than 'up' and 'down' quarks: 'charm' and 'top' quarks are identical to 'up' quarks in their charge and spin, but they have much greater mass - could this be a difference in the volume of 'neutral state matter' affected by a charge? Also, what of the 'spin' of elementary particles? All save Bosons (energies - eg. Photons) have spin. Could it be possible that a spin put on 'neutral state matter' is enough to transform it into a different (but 'neutral charge') discernible element (a neutrino) having some mass?
The constant I see through all the above is a 'state of balance' - elementary particles of all sorts seem be trying to attain a 'level of zero' state (with or without charge). Only elements with opposing factors can annihilate each other (the opposing 'spins' of neutrinos/antineutrinos cancel each other, the opposing charge of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen atoms cancel each other (leaving neutrinos, if their spin is in the same direction?)).
Friday, 3 December 2010
Nothing is Something.
Further study into atomic behaviour motivates me to add to my earlier mullings a bit. Yet I am still persuaded that our universe is based on some sort of 'neutral state' material that, thus far, is invisible to us, a matter that may be in itself define 'invisibility'.
What got me thinking the most was my reading on 'antiparticles' - 'stable' particles (any particle in the atomic scale) that operate on a negative charge. In a 'normal' (positively-charged) atom, the positively-charged nucleus (consisting of neutrally-charged neutrons and positively-charged protons) attracts the negatively-charged electron, yet the energy of the electron is not enough to overcome the nucleus' 'binding force' and is repelled by it. The same laws hold true if an atom's nucleus and electron(s) are both negatively-charged. Yet when a particle and its polar-twin antiparticle (say, a hydrogen atom and a 'anti-hydrogen' atom) enter into contact, they annihilate each other, and the same would happen if a positron (positively-charged electron) and electron converge; I am persuaded that whatever is 'left over' from these collisions would be 'neutral state' matter.
Whatever this 'neutral state matter' is, it is capable of accepting a charge, but the conditions in which this could happen would have to be extreme. I imagine an effect almost like water skipping off a duck's back; a ducks's feathers have waterproofing enough to resist absorbing the water propelled on them under 'natural' conditions, but were the water propelled with enough energy (and/or volume), the feathers would be obliged to absorb moisture. This action could explain the behaviour of rays (energy) through a seeming void: if the energy is not travelling with a force/speed enough to affect the 'base state' matter, it will simply skip across it. This may even define the speed of light; any energy above this level is absorbed by the 'base matter', thus becoming invisible to us - or would it create a new perfectly-visible particle?
This model still makes sense when applied to particles as small as quarks. Once a 'base matter' particle becomes charged, it gains mass; it is still 'attracted' back to its 'neutral' state, but is impeded from doing so by its charge. How the newly-formed particle behaves with its neighbouring particles depends on how it is charged: according to today's model, an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge and a 2.4 MeV mass, and a 'down' quark has a -1/3 charge and twice the mass, and these, once created, would 'clump' into 'stable state' Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons).
I wouldn't be at all surprised if quarks and electrons, if they are not one and the same, are at least in the same family: it would make sense if, at the beginning of the universe, the quark-energy soup combined to form all the Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons) it could, and electrons are simply 'free' negatively-charged quarks 'left over' from this grouping/inter-annihilation: these particles would be attracted to the already-formed Protons by their negative charge, but would lack the energy needed to affect the Proton's already-stable state ('binding energy'), thus gravitate around them.
Atomic construction from then on was consequential, through methods already well-known to us.
Monday, 1 November 2010
Further thought on atom construction.
In examining a chart of known elementary particles (one is available here), I noticed that the lower the electrical charge of an element, the higher the mass. In referring to my earlier thoughts, could this mean that mass can be synonymous to... gravitational pull, and that electrical charge can cancel that pull? Or does it mean that, in order for a certain particle to remain stable, it must contain a 'balanced' charge/base energy ratio?
It seems to fit. An 'up' quark is half as heavy as a 'down' quark, and there is a 'one part' charge difference between the two (an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge, a 'down' quark has -1/3 - thoughts on this scale later). There are other 'heavier' types of quarks (following the same 2/3 -1/3 pattern), but we'll stick to the base elementary particles for now for simplicity's sake. Anyhow, in the next stage of atomic construction, that is to say the formation of hadrons, we see that quarks whose masses are similar are more prone to group into a stable hadron (proton or neutron). If we then consider electrons, elementary particles having a -1 charge and having approximately 1/5 the mass of an 'up' quark (thus 1/10 of a 'down' quark)... there's something going on here.
I'm imagining something like this:
It seems to fit. An 'up' quark is half as heavy as a 'down' quark, and there is a 'one part' charge difference between the two (an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge, a 'down' quark has -1/3 - thoughts on this scale later). There are other 'heavier' types of quarks (following the same 2/3 -1/3 pattern), but we'll stick to the base elementary particles for now for simplicity's sake. Anyhow, in the next stage of atomic construction, that is to say the formation of hadrons, we see that quarks whose masses are similar are more prone to group into a stable hadron (proton or neutron). If we then consider electrons, elementary particles having a -1 charge and having approximately 1/5 the mass of an 'up' quark (thus 1/10 of a 'down' quark)... there's something going on here.
I'm imagining something like this:
Of course, the quarks are not to scale (it is possible that the 'G' base energy is consistent, and only the 'E' (charge) element varies), but you get the picture. If we were to bump the electron's -1 charge indicated in the chart above to '0', and apply the same change throughout, it would fit this schema exactly: electrons would have no charge, 'down' quarks would have some charge, but 'up' quarks would have more. In fact, I would in fact like to do away with the notion of 'negative charge' altogether - either something has charge, or it doesn't. Gravitational energy ('base energy') attracts charge energy (they almost seem to be trying to cancel each other out). If it were really that simple...
If we move up to the next stage of atom formation (the grouping of 'like' quarks into hadrons, or neutrons and protons), it makes even more sense: quarks will group according to their charge (two ups and one down, or vice versa - I suppose any additional quark will cause 'imbalance' and be rejected), then neutrons and protons will group in turn (in a stable atom, at least to the lower end of the periodic table, there is an equal amount of neutrons and protons) - in any atom nucleus, it would seem that the energetic charge of protons cancels out those of neutrons, leaving only the gravitational force to hold sway over neighbouring elements (apart from their own attraction, depending on their charge, to the stabalised core).
But let us not forget that the first atoms of our universe were hydrogen atoms - and these have no neutron - yet we can see why a non-charged element (electron) would be attracted to a charged element (proton) only. Let us also remember that an electron penetrating a proton will transform it into a neutron - or, in another way of looking at it, it will transform one of the proton's 'up' quarks into a 'down' one. Yet both of these tendencies still fit into the model - atoms heavier than hydrogen are created through fusion, thus neutrons as well. I doubt that, in its very very atomic beginning, our universe contained anything but hydrogen atoms, energy, and free electrons.
I'd almost like to imagine that the very beginnings of our universe was lumps of 'G matter' and the pure energy ('E') that resulted in/resulted from its release (from its 'perfect state') - I think that every atom that could ever form (through 'quark binding') in our universe already has, and everything else (photons, free electrons), is the 'leftovers' from this initial mix.
On Atom Construction
I wouldn't be surprised if quarks and leptons (electrons) contained the same base element. If, at the beginning of our universe, a soup of base elements separated from their stabilising energy charge tried to return to their original 'perfect' state, it would make sense that these elements would 'bind' according to their energy level. Already-charged (positive) elements would bind with lesser-charged (negative) others, creating hadrons, and these in turn would group according to their own respective 'polarisation' (charge). Already stable hadrons would reject any further binding (each contain three quarks, two 'up' and one 'down', or vice versa) - I wouldn't at all be surprised that electrons (leptons) were unbound but charged quarks ('base elements') 'left over' from the initial 'soup construction' stage, once it was completed. Electrons still attempt to bind with an atom's nucleus (and its protons and neutrons), but the 'rejecting force' ('binding energy') of an atom's nucleus (and its individual hadrons) and its opposing charge, prevent them from doing so.
This fits in with the thought that gravity is the 'base element' minus its initial energy, or the effect caused by the 'base element' trying to capture energy enough to return to its initial 'perfect' state. A base element trying to recuperate its initial energy either succeeds or fails depending on its energy level in relation with its neighbours - once no further hadron binding was possible, everything else that followed (atom construction) was but consequential.
Addendum: I can't help but observe that the 'binding force' between stable elements decreases as we advance further along the atomic construction scale. Binding between quarks (creating hadrons) seems to be the strongest, but it is lower between charged hadrons (neutrons and protons).
I also can't help but notice that protons (containing two charged, or 'up' quarks) alone, unbound, are the only element that can retain stability; neutrons are overcome, or are 'evaporated', by their own forces. Does this mean that a stabilised hadron has to 'feed on' (or be 'fed upon') by its neighbour in order to maintain stability? Neutrons contain one 'charged' quark (or 'up' quark) and two 'down' quarks; although a neutron has greater mass (?), the single 'up' quark (that seems to be the instigator of the binding energy) alone doesn't seem to contain energy enough to keep the quark formation together. It would seem logical that a neutron needs to 'feed' on a proton's two 'up' quarks; together, a proton and a neutron together contain three 'up' quarks and three 'down', thus balance each other perfectly. Furthermore, consider that when a 'negatively charged' electron, when introduced into a proton, creates a neutron: it would seem that a 'negative' (no energy?) electron 'saps' a proton's positive energy (transforming one of its quarks into a higher mass 'down' quark. This seems to fit into the theory that even a quark has a 'stable state' of its own: either it is a 'base energy' (gravitational force) containing no 'electrical' charge, or it is an (equal?) balance of base energy and charged energy. 'Base energy' seems to be the most stable of the two, if a hadron's charged energy is released with the introduction of additional uncharged 'base energy'. This is all beginning to make sense.
This fits in with the thought that gravity is the 'base element' minus its initial energy, or the effect caused by the 'base element' trying to capture energy enough to return to its initial 'perfect' state. A base element trying to recuperate its initial energy either succeeds or fails depending on its energy level in relation with its neighbours - once no further hadron binding was possible, everything else that followed (atom construction) was but consequential.
Addendum: I can't help but observe that the 'binding force' between stable elements decreases as we advance further along the atomic construction scale. Binding between quarks (creating hadrons) seems to be the strongest, but it is lower between charged hadrons (neutrons and protons).
I also can't help but notice that protons (containing two charged, or 'up' quarks) alone, unbound, are the only element that can retain stability; neutrons are overcome, or are 'evaporated', by their own forces. Does this mean that a stabilised hadron has to 'feed on' (or be 'fed upon') by its neighbour in order to maintain stability? Neutrons contain one 'charged' quark (or 'up' quark) and two 'down' quarks; although a neutron has greater mass (?), the single 'up' quark (that seems to be the instigator of the binding energy) alone doesn't seem to contain energy enough to keep the quark formation together. It would seem logical that a neutron needs to 'feed' on a proton's two 'up' quarks; together, a proton and a neutron together contain three 'up' quarks and three 'down', thus balance each other perfectly. Furthermore, consider that when a 'negatively charged' electron, when introduced into a proton, creates a neutron: it would seem that a 'negative' (no energy?) electron 'saps' a proton's positive energy (transforming one of its quarks into a higher mass 'down' quark. This seems to fit into the theory that even a quark has a 'stable state' of its own: either it is a 'base energy' (gravitational force) containing no 'electrical' charge, or it is an (equal?) balance of base energy and charged energy. 'Base energy' seems to be the most stable of the two, if a hadron's charged energy is released with the introduction of additional uncharged 'base energy'. This is all beginning to make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)