# Thread: Topological solitons of ellipsoid field - our particle menagerie correspondence?

1. Scalar Higgs potential is not new, but here its essence is taken to tensor field - that its minimum has nontrivial topology (originally circle, here a subgroup of SO(3) or SO(4)) - it allows for situations in which field topological constrains on boundary of a set, enforce going out of minimum of the potential - allow to glue singularities avoiding infinities and giving them rest energy (mass).
I haven't derived the potential, but only gave examples of potentials fulfilling the main condition here - that it prefers some set of eigenvalues, but eventually allows them to deform. As rpenner reminded, not all of them have to be Lorentz invariant - but for example these using Tr(M^k) are. The search for the proper one would be major research topic for eventual simulations.

About the 'reper' word - I though it is common in differential geometry, GRT, but it seems it is specific for my region - it just means local coordinates: reper field/bundle means there are e.g. 3 or 4 orthogonal distinguishable axes in each point.
My intention for using it was to simplify situation - from topological point of view, we can forget about ellipsoid radii and their deformations - it's enough to consider field of set of their undirected axes - undirected 'reper field'.

AlphaNumeric, as I've said, for now it's just a sketch - I gave you materials I've written, I can try to answer single concrete questions, but please don't ask me to write everything again.
Standard approach to physics is by guessing Lagrangian terms to fit numerical values and ignoring conceptual problems like infinities or that we cannot define electric field in the center of charge ... here I'm trying to go opposite way - start with recreating qualitative picture ...
You can look at it as a trial to avoid undefined infinites - by using Higgs-like tensor potential ... have you seen an attempt to glue electric field around charge without nonphysical situations we had to get used to?
Or since you are the smart topology guy - just think about it as an interesting topological exercise - classification of topological singularities of not just vector field as usually, but ellipsoid/reper field in 3D or 4D ... looking simple but quite unknown - instead of asking a guy who you see incompetent, just show what you can tell about it ...

2. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
It's not about going from one field to another, but about equivalent ones: about seeing them from a different perspective.
If you have such (stress) tensor field: continuous field of real symmetric matrices (positively defined in our case) - you can think about them in diagonalized form: as given number of eigenvectors and corresponding eigenvalues - which for better intuition can be drawn as ellipsoid with these axes and radii.
For example {{1,0},{0,2}} matrix can be drawn as ellipse which axes are coordinate axes and radii are 1 and 2.
The more eigenvalues are equalized (e.g. by deformation), the more symmetric our ellipsoid is and finally became a ball for identity matrix.
Pictures of ellipsoid field on discrete lattice was made by sampling continuous tensor field on this lattice.
You have not proven continuity for your topology yet use it freely.

So, your ideas are unfounded until you prove this continuity.

3. chinglu, if you are not able to distinguish between assumptions and results, I really give up ... continuity of field is one of the most basic assumptions of physical theories (with eyes shut near singularities...) - once again: it's not something what can be proven, but just a natural assumption.

4. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
Scalar Higgs potential is not new, but here its essence is taken to tensor field.
Having tensor fields take particular values and then considering their perturbations isn't new either. In fact its the essence of metric linearisation, $g_{ab}(x) = g_{ab}(x_{0}) + h_{ab}(x-x_{0})$ where typically $g_{ab}(x_{0}) = \eta_{ab}$ for particular coordinates.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
that its minimum has nontrivial topology (originally circle, here a subgroup of SO(3) or SO(4))
No, a circle has SO(2) symmetry, it is not a subgroup of SO(3) or SO(4) in and of itself, you're conflating a thing for its structure (or rather the opposite).

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
it allows for situations in which field topological constrains on boundary of a set, enforce going out of minimum of the potential - allow to glue singularities avoiding infinities and giving them rest energy (mass).
I have repeatedly asked you to show precisely what it is you're doing, to give something more than words. As I just pointed out, your usage of terminology is at best dubious (perhaps due to a language barrier) and perhaps at worst just word salad. If you're really doing this for a PhD then please provide a link to a paper you've got in a reputable journal on this stuff. If you've not published anything yet then can you please send me a link via PM, I will not show it to anyone else but I would like to see you do more than just post words.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
About the 'reper' word - I though it is common in differential geometry, GRT, but it seems it is specific for my region - it just means local coordinates: reper field/bundle means there are e.g. 3 or 4 orthogonal distinguishable axes in each point.
Such a thing is a frame bundle on a parallelisable manifold. On non-parallelisable manifolds it is not possible to construct a set of non-degenerate axes at all points in the manifold which vary continuously.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
My intention for using it was to simplify situation - from topological point of view, we can forget about ellipsoid radii and their deformations - it's enough to consider field of set of their undirected axes - undirected 'reper field'.
The requirement of parallelisability is an extremely large restriction, the majority of compact spaces are not parallelisable. And speaking from personal experience, intuition is not the way to go about this, you need to be rigorous and work through the mathematics. If all you have is words and some pictures you're not going to get far.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
I gave you materials I've written
Which post did you provide them? I haven't seen you provide anything more substantial than what could be got from an afternoon using Google. You claim there's some link between 'topological solitons of ellipsoid fields' and the family of particles in particle physics but if all you've done is all you've posted then I fail to see where you have any justification for any claim you've made. You've talked about spin and charge and symmetry groups and fibre bundles and solitons but if you haven't got anything more than what you've provided in posts I cannot possibly see how you can be seriously planning to get a PhD in this stuff in the not too distant future. If someone had asked me a month ago how much experience I have with solitons I'd have said "Minimal, mostly in the realm of fluid mechanics" but if your experience with them is completely represented by what you've posted you have even less experience with them than me. And you definitely fall a long way short when it comes to symmetries, topologies, field theory and differential geometry. Sure, those happen to be precisely what I did my PhD in but that means I know the kind of level of understanding needed to get a PhD in this area and your posts haven't convinced me you even understand them, never mind have contributed enough to physics to be worthy of a PhD.

Are you honestly planning to defend a thesis in this in the next year? Really?

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
I can try to answer single concrete questions, but please don't ask me to write everything again.
I'd settle for a few links, either to papers of yours on this stuff or to posts where you give the specifics, which I guess I must have missed. I'm not asking you to post loads of details again because that would imply you've done it before.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
Standard approach to physics is by guessing Lagrangian terms to fit numerical values and ignoring conceptual problems like infinities or that we cannot define electric field in the center of charge ... here I'm trying to go opposite way - start with recreating qualitative picture ...
That is just flat out wrong. The issue of infinities is central to quantum field theory, its what renormalisation is all about. Lagrangians are massively constrained by renormalisability and symmetries. There is only 1 U(1) renormalisable 4d Lagrangian, that of QED. Its Landau pole shows it should be embedded into a larger model. The next largest one is SU(2), which is the electroweak model. The next one is QCD. Symmetries and renormalisability reduces infinitely many combinations to a handful. And anything which works by point particles is doing to have these issues, even Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
here I'm trying to go opposite way - start with recreating qualitative picture ...
You've started with some pictures, throw in a ton of buzzwords and proclaimed you'll be defending a thesis on this stuff soon. Unless you've only shown us 0.001% of the material you've done either you're lying or your thesis isn't worth the \$50 it'll cost to print and bind. I've asked repeatedly you provide more than just the qualitative picture and you've failed to provide at every turn.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
You can look at it as a trial to avoid undefined infinites - by using Higgs-like tensor potential ... have you seen an attempt to glue electric field around charge without nonphysical situations we had to get used to?
You haven't provided a mechanism to avoid it at all. You've yet to show you can recover anything like the Standard Model. You haven't even shown what you're referring to can be associated to a particle, other than just asserting it.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
Or since you are the smart topology guy - just think about it as an interesting topological exercise - classification of topological singularities of not just vector field as usually, but ellipsoid/reper field in 3D or 4D ... looking simple but quite unknown - instead of asking a guy who you see incompetent, just show what you can tell about it
Where to start..... Let's look at this line by line :

"Or since you are the smart topology guy - just think about it as an interesting topological exercise"

If it was simple enough for someone with my level of understanding to just knock out in an evening without prior reading then it wouldn't be worth a PhD. It wouldn't be worth a paper. It wouldn't be unknown. Anything worth a PhD is difficult, that's what makes a PhD worth something. The nut job Terry Giblin made a similar request of me, to solve a problem he claimed was worth a PhD, that it was supposedly something I should be able to do easily. He failed to grasp, as you seem to have failed too, that if it were that easy my criticism it wasn't worth a PhD would be utterly valid.

"classification of topological singularities of not just vector field as usually, but ellipsoid/reper field in 3D or 4D"

A number of issues there. Firstly, you don't make it clear whether you mean a 3 or 4 rank tensor field over any base manifold or you mean a general tensor field defined on a base manifold of dimension 3 or 4. Secondly I've already told you what such concepts are called in the literature, they are 'parallelisable manifolds'. Tori are such that its possible to define a non-degenerate frame bundle over them, each point in the torus can have a set of axes associated to it which vary smoothly over the torus and where the axes are never degenerate (ie they form a basis to the fibre vector space). Tori are very nice manifolds, along with standard Euclidean or Minkowski manifolds, but they are the exception, not the rule. Pick a general compact space and you're not going to have such nicities in general.

I said in a previous post I'd typed something out and it'd gotten eaten by my crappy netbook. In that post I explained this issue in detail. For instance, consider a 6 dimensional compact space which is parallelisable, such as a 6 dimensional torus. It's possible to define a 3 form not unlike the Maxwell 2-form, $F_{3} = dB_{2}$ (while for Maxwell you have $F_{2} = dA_{1}$) where B is the string 2 form NS-NS field. If the space is parallelisable then you can define the components of the tensor in terms of the frame bundle basis at a particular point $\eta^{a} = N^{a}_{b}dx^{b}$ where $dx^{b}$ is the usual cotangent bundle basis and N is a transformation matrix. The components are then $F = F_{abc}\eta^{abc}$ where [texc]\eta^{abc} = \eta^{a}\wedge \eta^{b} \wedge \eta^{c}[/tex] using usual exterior calculus. This is just a generalisation of the Maxwell tensor components $F_{ab}$ where $F_{0i} = -E_{i}$ and $F_{ij} = \epsilon_{ijk}B_{k}$ in electromagnetism. However, if the space is not parallelisable then $\eta^{a}$ are not globally definable, N is not non-singular. Then you have to use the de Rham cohomology for $H^{3}$, which is of even dimension and has symplectic structure, $F_{3} = F_{I}\alpha_{I} - F^{J}\beta^{J}$ where $\int_{M}\alpha_{I} \wedge \beta^{J} = \delta_{I}^{J}$. Via the homology-cohomology duality the dimension of $H^{3}$ is $2h^{1,2}+2$ where $h^{1,2}$ is a Hodge number and related to complex cycles in M and the Betti number, the number of usual real cycles in M. The cycles define the cohomology, which defines the harmonic forms, which defines the massless field content of the model. Thus the extension of usual Maxwell field tensor to higher dimensions is defined.

But wait, if you turn on a field then, via general relativity, you warp the space so in actual fact the massless fields aren't massless and N isn't constant and you can't use harmonic analysis and your exterior derivative picks up a torsion term and then your torus is no longer a torus, its been 'twisted' and before you know it you're knee deep in twisted generalised Calabi Yaus, generalised geometry and Hitchin functionals.

And how do I know this? Because that's what I spent several years doing. Anyway, back to your post :

"looking simple but quite unknown"

It only looks simple to you because you clearly haven't got a clue just how deep the rabbit hole is.

"instead of asking a guy who you see incompetent, just show what you can tell about it"

I've reeled this post off the top of my head and I've given more detail about this stuff in one post than you've given in all your posts. The fact you challenge me to answer a question, which you admit hasn't been answered, as if I should be able to answer it in a single post without much effort illustrates precisely what I've been getting at. You seem to have no clue as to the level of detail expected and known in the physics community, no understanding of the material yourself and gross naivety as to what constitutes being worth a PhD. You say you've given detail but you haven't. If you think you have given details then you again show how naive you are about what constitutes 'detail' when you're working at this level in physics.

You posted this stuff on PhysForums too. Why are you doing that? If your *cough* research is guided so much by the views of laypersons and cranks then you should re-evaluate your research. Actually, scrub that, you should re-evaluate your research regardless, because you are at best very naive and poorly read about this stuff and at worst flat out delusional about your ignorance.

5. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
chinglu, if you are not able to distinguish between assumptions and results, I really give up ... continuity of field is one of the most basic assumptions of physical theories (with eyes shut near singularities...) - once again: it's not something what can be proven, but just a natural assumption.

I am able to distinguish between assumptions and results.

First, you said your point sets are ellipses. Now you say they are a field of ellipses I guess. I see you do not want to prove you can move from these ellipses to continuity or fields.

Then, I asked you to prove the continuity of the "field" if true, to your deformations. You may thing that mapping a continuous set to a continuous set automagically implies, but that is false.

So, I then asked you to prove your topology is continuous. That means you have to prove continuity which is a fundamental concept in toploogy.

Can you prove your points set are a field?

6. I see that for some people it's extremely difficult to realize, but this thread was supposed to be about ellipsoid field - conceptually simple tensor field. I would really gladly discuss about it and its quite interesting consequences ... but after over 40 posts I've seen here only one person (rpenner) whose posts suggest trying to imagine this model and real intentions to discuss this topic.
AlphaNumeric, your posts are the perfect example of how discussion shouldn't look like - you produce succeeding leading nowhere extremely long posts in which I can find some 6 or more dimensional unrelated stuff, but I couldn't find a single concrete valuable sentence on the topic. You seem to be some kind of 'thread crasher' - your intention is not to discuss the topic, or even try to understand somebody's else view, but just as some shallow trial to impress somebody by pasting from a textbook some unrelated mathematical texts and catching by words, insulting everybody who is not enthusiast of your glorious and again leading nowhere: string theory.
In "(originally circle, here a subgroup of SO(3) or SO(4)) " I didn't mean that circle is a subgroup, but that in original scalar Higgs potential the minimum is circle, while here is correspondingly the other groups ... and a person not only saying it, but really understanding the topic, again wouldn't make such comment. And no, ellipsoid field is an idea for further work, this PhD is going to be extensions of concepts from our PRL paper about Maximal Entropy Random Walk.

chinglu, I really give up trying to explain to you continuity of tensor field ... what you need is not to just reply like the person above, but relax and try to feel the concept of scalar/vector/tensor fields and how to imagine, represent it - as a graph/lines in space/ellipsoid field (if real, symmetric and positively defined).

I see no point in wasting time for this 'discussion', but I'm looking forward for the real discussion - with persons who tried to think about this simple but concrete tensor field and have some concrete comments or questions on the topic. I'll read posts, but I won't reply until there will be something worth it.

7. I used 6 dimensional manifolds as an example because that's what I have experience with but what I said applies to any dimensional space, 3, 4, 6, 10, 50, 10000000000. Particular cases are more well understood than others, due to things like string theory motivating researchers but that doesn't mean the general concepts don't apply. Everything I said can be applied in 4 dimensions, with the relevant modifications of the Hodge and Betti numbers, which you should know about if you're familiar with cohomologies.

Parallelisability is exactly what you're talking about, defining a set of axes at every point in a space which vary smoothly as you move through the space and which are non-degenerate. I've shown that I grasp this stuff and can talk about the details, yet now you back away from a discussion. If you can motivate a specific discussion in the realms of fibre bundles, parallelisability, cohmologies and such then I'll be more than happy to keep my posts to those topics and only those topics. It was something vaguely akin to fun to talk about cohomologies and symplectic forms again, its been close to a year since I had to load up that part of my brain and its something I miss. Honestly, I'd welcome a discussion on that stuff.

However, if all you're capable of doing is just throwing out buzzwords for other people to give the details on then you're not really able to back out of the discussion, as you were never really in one to begin with.

I suspect you've realised you've bitten off more than you can chew and you're not going to be able to bullshit here on the topic of 'elliptic fields' and topology because that happens to be an answer a poster (ie me) knows something about. You've tried the crank tactic of aiming high with your bull and hoping it goes over everyone's head. And like so many cranks you've failed to aim high enough and been called on it.

8. Being a scientist is not only about speaking generalities, but also about applying them in concrete situations ... and you've just produced another post without a sentence about the very concrete field this thread was intended to be about.
If you are indeed so good in topology and this soliton family-particle correspondence is only some shallow coincidence, you should have no problem to just give one concrete argument and I'll be able to just throw it to trash ... but in opposite to rpenner, you don't even try ...

It's a trial to see the whole physics as emerging from relatively simple assumptions for the field:
- which in vacuum becomes electromagnetism (and gravity), but to handle singularities avoiding infinities (e.g. of EM field), near particles it can look like a different interaction (weak/strong),
- which leads to quantization of spin, charge and other quantum numbers, (on topological level),
- these quantum numbers should fully identify field configuration - particle (even distinguish between long/short living neutral kaons ...),
- field configuration of particle should be usually in the lowest energy state for these given constrains (quantum numbers) – this rest energy is their mass (through Lorentz invariance becomes also inertial mass and should deform gravitational field to became also gravitational mass)...

9. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda

chinglu, I really give up trying to explain to you continuity of tensor field ... what you need is not to just reply like the person above, but relax and try to feel the concept of scalar/vector/tensor fields and how to imagine, represent it - as a graph/lines in space/ellipsoid field (if real, symmetric and positively defined).

I see no point in wasting time for this 'discussion', but I'm looking forward for the real discussion - with persons who tried to think about this simple but concrete tensor field and have some concrete comments or questions on the topic. I'll read posts, but I won't reply until there will be something worth it.
Well, from a math background, it is quite simple to me that you prove your continuity in a topology. Try google.

Next, I would expect one to functionally prove your deformations.
You have done neither. Then, you pretend I have done something wrong for asking the correct topological questions you cannot answer.

That means if your cannot prove these simple math questions I ask, then you have a failed theory.

10. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
Being a scientist is not only about speaking generalities, but also about applying them in concrete situations ... and you've just produced another post without a sentence about the very concrete field this thread was intended to be about.
Are you even reading my posts? I went into explicit, quantitative detail about how parallelisability, ie the ability to define the ellipsoids you refer to, relates to topology and de Rham cohomologies, precisely things you brought up! I've given more detail than you have and I've offered to go into more detail.

If you're so myopic in your understanding you can't see how what I've said is related to what you've said then, once again, I question how much of this you understand.

Would you like me to go into more detail about how parallelisability relates to cohomologies? Would you like me to explain the sorts of difficulties anyone researching this stuff is going to come up against, so you can go and find out about relevant areas of research?

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
If you are indeed so good in topology and this soliton family-particle correspondence is only some shallow coincidence, you should have no problem to just give one concrete argument and I'll be able to just throw it to trash ... but in opposite to rpenner, you don't even try ...
If you're not even going to read my posts or simply ignore things I've said then you are just trolling. I addressed precisely this comment you previously made. Reread my last post.

Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
It's a trial to see the whole physics as emerging from relatively simple assumptions for the field:
- which in vacuum becomes electromagnetism (and gravity), but to handle singularities avoiding infinities (e.g. of EM field), near particles it can look like a different interaction (weak/strong),
- which leads to quantization of spin, charge and other quantum numbers, (on topological level),
- these quantum numbers should fully identify field configuration - particle (even distinguish between long/short living neutral kaons ...),
- field configuration of particle should be usually in the lowest energy state for these given constrains (quantum numbers) – this rest energy is their mass (through Lorentz invariance becomes also inertial mass and should deform gravitational field to became also gravitational mass)...
You complain I've been talking in generalities but everything you just said you've assumed. I've ask you to show any of these relations are viable or the assumptions lead to anything even vaguely like the Standard Model and you've failed.

I provide detail, you ignore it and complain I'm being too general. I ask you to provide detail and you do nothing but arm wave. Dishonesty and hypocrisy are becoming your calling cards.

11. If someone is interested in this model, I've just written an essay gathering my considerations:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12405967/elfld.pdf

For example nuclei are better explained there - this model seems to explain why neutron requires charge for stability and how charge is distributed in nucleon, nucleus: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....e-with-neutron

12. I don't agree with trying to apply principles in thermodynamics to the "classical" view of quantum mechanics. I think the laws of thermodynamics are just too classical. For example, send electrons down a waveguide that splits into two seperate waveguide where one of those paths are a half wave long. This principle is commonly used in radar technology to prevent receivers from frying. Thermodynamics says that the electrons should be evenly distributed through both paths of the wave guide. This is not what happens! The electrons decide to travel only down the path that is not a half wave length. No energy can be measured or detected that it even began to travel down the half wave path. This is unexplained phenomena, it is explained as the electron just knows that it doesn't want to go that way with some sort of an action at a distance. My own interpretation is that the electron traveling close to the speed of light observes the half wave guide to be contracted to zero in length. Then each electrons own wave can cancel itself, since it sees itself everywhere along the half wave guide at once. I think the "classical" view predicts self interaction of particles traveling close to the speed of light. Then with this self interaction energy cannot be conserved, say I only shot electrons down a half wave guide and that was the only direction they where able to go, then where would they go? I think one of two things could happen, they would be destroyed and break down into photons that would then also be destroyed if manipulated the same way at the proper wavelength. Or, they would just quantum jump out of the waveguide. Quantum Jumping occures when a particles own wave would in effect cancel itself. It then can pass through a material as the wave is canceled, until the wave would no longer cancel itself and then reappears on the other side. Either way energy is not conserved during this process, because during a quantum jump the particle is undetectable for the duration of that jump. A perfectly isolated system is impossible to acheive, therefore conservation laws are just classical theory. There could never be an experiment that perfectly isolates itself from its surrounding so that it could be proven that no energy was ever lost in that system. I think electrons do not create infinite energy when in orbit around the atom because of the electron cloud. It can deflect itself with its own field, so the same path isn't repeated infinitely. Then when it gains more energy it jumps to a higher shell, or emmits a photon at the outermost shell. But, I don't think that an atom that was refused incoming electromagnetic radiation wouldn't decay if it didn't have a half life, even though it emmitted electromagnetic radiation itself.

13. Prof. Layman, I don't see connection to this thread (do you refer to Maximal Entropy Random Walk?), but thermodynamics/statistical physics is just using mathematically universal maximal uncertainty principle - that if you don't have any knowledge, you should assume uniform distribution among possibilities, or Boltzmann distribution while fixing total energy. It can be proven from pure combinatorics, like the number of n sequences of 0/1 having pn of "1"s is (n /choose np)~ 2^(n h(p)), where h(p)=-plg(p)-(1-p)lg(1-p) is Shannon's entropy (from Stirling's formula) - p=1/2 completely dominates all possibilities.
It is also successfully used in QM, like while deriving Planck's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

14. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
Prof. Layman, I don't see connection to this thread (do you refer to Maximal Entropy Random Walk?), but thermodynamics/statistical physics is just using mathematically universal maximal uncertainty principle - that if you don't have any knowledge, you should assume uniform distribution among possibilities, or Boltzmann distribution while fixing total energy. It can be proven from pure combinatorics, like the number of n sequences of 0/1 having pn of "1"s is (n /choose np)~ 2^(n h(p)), where h(p)=-plg(p)-(1-p)lg(1-p) is Shannon's entropy (from Stirling's formula) - p=1/2 completely dominates all possibilities.
It is also successfully used in QM, like while deriving Planck's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
I was just quoting classical in reference to the paper you just linked. I didn't mean to imply that I didn't agree with the uncertainty principle. I was pointing out that there can be no degree of certainty of electromagnetic radiation down a half wave guide, as accoring to current radar theory. The energy traveling back into a radar will be traveling at a different wavelength and then will go back into the reciever. It sounded like you where trying to explain how particles can be explained by traveling in these mathmatical "knots". I was explaining how I don't think electromagnetic radiation would correspond to this type of behavior from the radar theory experiment. (I haven't heard much about it from any other sources, but I would have to admit it is one hell of a experiment, ie, underated.) Although, I am not sure how to even begin to describe how the lack of uncertainty of a particle that is being reflected by a like charge. I am suggesting that the path of particles that are sent along the same paths will experience a certain type of self interaction, that corresponds to current radar theory.

15. Uncertainty is when we involve a subject making extremely subtle measurement processes - quantum mechanics is used to handle such limited information situations.
But here we would like to get below: find an objective, deterministic picture, which would be described by QM on effective level.
There is no way we could directly measure down to this subquantum level, but we can ask for consequences of candidate of such more fundamental theory - to make them agree with known larger scale properties.

About a path of particle, the particle half of wave-particle duality suggests that even if we cannot measure it, there is an objective one. The second half of duality says it is conjugated with waves around - these waves go all paths and interacting with them may lead e.g. to interference. Here is nice video of Couder's experiments: classical analogues of interference, tunneling, orbit quantization, Zeeman splitting using such de Broglie's view on the duality which in opposite to orthodox view, allows to search for an objective and deterministic theory below: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...-droplets.html

16. I have heard that you can create electrons by intesifying photons and they act in accordance to E=mc^2 while doing this from a couple of university web sites, although I don't think that energy was reflected. I also heard from watching a recent link to a Ted talk on this web site (sorry lost the link), that the electron in string theory is described as a string that is intensifying itself. It was a commment made by a man after the bum from Hawaii told about his 8 manifold particle theory, but then he says he doesn't like string theory (ironic I think he should because in the Ted talk Briane Greene says there is no way to know what type of manifold should be used and the man that came into the end of the talk tries to get it out of him, wonder why he never tried a 10 manifold). It makes you wonder, is a photon a string? It does travel in a line and vibrate in the form of a wave...

17. Please don't treat seriously string theory fairy tales - no, you cannot make electron by intensifying photon - charge is very different field configuration: where electric field seem to go to infinity. Faber's approach ( http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/361/1/012022/ ) is about reformulating electromagnetism to additionally ensure charge quantization - he uses field of unit vectors and charge is e.g. hedgehog configuration (v(x)=x/|x|). Curvature of such field decreases with distance, defining electric field straightforward from curvature, he gets standard electromagnetic interaction between such charges. Ellipsoid field is complementation of his model by single degree of freedom, corresponding to quantum phase.

18. If you can't trust major universities, who can you trust? They do take a lot of your money, with no real guarantee of having a high paying job to pay it back. To clearify, the experiment has no connection to string theory, it is only a connection I was trying to make. I beleive that the experiment is valid. That is if you have the energy of photons in phase with that would equal the mass of an electron, than an electron will be generated in accordance to E=mc^2(that seems to be the only work brought on by this experiment). I think it just hasn't gotten very much attention, as it could make us try to revaluate the idea that the electron is a fundamental particle. I have pondered this question for a long time, and haven't come across anything that shows that it has too be. I think most of the quantum weirdness implies that it is not, and tends to follow along toward ideas that involve self interaction of particles in and out of phase with each other. We only need to more properly describe this interaction.

I don't agree with the paper from your last link remarks about the Higgs Boson, after all a Higgs-like boson was found. I think the ideas your are trying to convey are in a way grossly similiar to electrodynamic symmetry. Then if there is electrodynamic symmetry then there should also be electrodynamic symmetry breaking. The question should be how does the symmetry of particle paths in the paper lead to this symmetry breaking, not that it is not necessary or does not exist. Maybe it does not care for the Higgs because it has come about finding Higgs like properties another way?

I have read before that an electromagnetic field can warp spacetime time, and in this way it could create an open singularity if a suffeciently advanced civilization had the proper technology. It is not a widely accepeted theory, and I have questioned its validity because of this as people don't associate the electromagnetic force as affecting spacetime. I notice that the paper remarks about how John A. Wheeler has formulated “Space-time tells matter how to move, matter tells space-time how to curve”. We can add “· · · and charge tells space how to rotate”. I thought I should also mention that the higgs-like particle does not seem to have a spin. To me the higgs is more like a manifistation of space, and if space is spinning and the higgs is not, it could be a problem even though I have heard that spin is not the actual spin of a particle, but then it does come from a source of a type of mathmatical spinning, go figure...

19. Originally Posted by Prof.Layman
That is if you have the energy of photons in phase with that would equal the mass of an electron, than an electron will be generated in accordance to E=mc^2(that seems to be the only work brought on by this experiment). I think it just hasn't gotten very much attention, as it could make us try to revaluate the idea that the electron is a fundamental particle. I have pondered this question for a long time, and haven't come across anything that shows that it has too be. I think most of the quantum weirdness implies that it is not, and tends to follow along toward ideas that involve self interaction of particles in and out of phase with each other. We only need to more properly describe this interaction.
You forgot about the most essential properties of electron: charge and magnetic dipole moment - they thyself say electron has complex configuration of EM field around - with electric field seeming to go to infinity in the center.
Besides mass, what more electron has? If nothing, maybe it not only has this field, but just is this field configuration - it's the view of topological soltions - that there is not required some additional "out of field entity".
Just find a field which has three types of hedgehog configurations and these leptons need to have dipole moments - and appeared quants of charge are just the particles as in this model. They have topological conflict in the center singularity, making EM field has to deform into weak/strong interaction and giving soliton mass.
So electron is fundamental particle, but is not point particle - to avoid ultraviolet divergence in QFT, you need to use some cutoff, corresponding to particle's size.

I don't agree with the paper from your last link remarks about the Higgs Boson, after all a Higgs-like boson was found. I think the ideas your are trying to convey are in a way grossly similiar to electrodynamic symmetry. Then if there is electrodynamic symmetry then there should also be electrodynamic symmetry breaking. The question should be how does the symmetry of particle paths in the paper lead to this symmetry breaking, not that it is not necessary or does not exist. Maybe it does not care for the Higgs because it has come about finding Higgs like properties another way?
First of all, these "particles" are rather resonant states - when you smash two particles, they can glue together for a moment, evolving as a pair for e.g. 10^-23s and then fall apart ...
Secondly, topological soliton models rather has to use Higgs-like potential (like Faber's or mine) - with minimum in topologically nontrivial set around zero. Topology enforces to get out of this potential minimum in the center of soliton - giving it mass. Dynamics inside this minimum are massless Goldstone bosons - corresponding to electromagnetism in our case.

I have read before that an electromagnetic field can warp spacetime time, and in this way it could create an open singularity if a suffeciently advanced civilization had the proper technology. It is not a widely accepeted theory, and I have questioned its validity because of this as people don't associate the electromagnetic force as affecting spacetime. I notice that the paper remarks about how John A. Wheeler has formulated “Space-time tells matter how to move, matter tells space-time how to curve”. We can add “· · · and charge tells space how to rotate”. I thought I should also mention that the higgs-like particle does not seem to have a spin. To me the higgs is more like a manifistation of space, and if space is spinning and the higgs is not, it could be a problem even though I have heard that spin is not the actual spin of a particle, but then it does come from a source of a type of mathmatical spinning, go figure...
The possibility of EM curving spacetime is only hypothesis - I don't believe in practical possibility of sending people back in time ... maybe information, especially there is a controlled version of delayed quantum erasure which seem to allow it.
And no, electron's spin is not about spinning the charge - here is some explanation: http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/spin.html
Especially spin is something more fundamental than charge - much simpler neutrino already has it.

20. Originally Posted by Jarek Duda
You forgot about the most essential properties of electron: charge and magnetic dipole moment - they thyself say electron has complex configuration of EM field around - with electric field seeming to go to infinity in the center.
Besides mass, what more electron has? If nothing, maybe it not only has this field, but just is this field configuration - it's the view of topological soltions - that there is not required some additional "out of field entity".
Just find a field which has three types of hedgehog configurations and these leptons need to have dipole moments - and appeared quants of charge are just the particles as in this model. They have topological conflict in the center singularity, making EM field has to deform into weak/strong interaction and giving soliton mass.
So electron is fundamental particle, but is not point particle - to avoid ultraviolet divergence in QFT, you need to use some cutoff, corresponding to particle's size.
I think this brings up the discussion of if there is really charge conservation. I think if you where someone like Benjamin Franklin trying to avoid electrocution by placing a small key on the string of a kite in the middle of a thunderstorm, then yes conservation would have a very profound effect on you. But, what about the subatomic world? I could say that a photon that has no charge could then be absorbed by an electron that is in orbit around the atom. I then could say that electron then became absorbed by a proton and then form a neutron. I could then smash this neutron into an antineutron, and then get a huge explosion of photonic energy. But wait, photons do not have charge... Where did the charge go?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•