# Gravigyro-Magnetic Equations with the Angle Between Spin States and a Force Equation

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Feb 28, 2012.

Not open for further replies.
1. My idea's are usually well beyond what I have constructed mathematically. Their uses can be explained in a non-trivial sense... which I will get to in a moment.

Only one idea I propose goes against existing belief, is that particles are truely pointlike systems. I make it clear to the reader late on in the OP that I want to address the idea that there is in fact, dimensions to a particle. I give some reasons why this should be an approach, even giving a conjecture that maybe there is a special limit on what we can get from current theoretical approaches - such as the question, ''why do particles seem like that behave like they are pointlike?''

Usually it is taken as a priori of fact that particles are pointlike. Perhaps particles are never quite pointlike but they may behave as though they are pointlike simply because they are so small. As I mentioned in the OP, it puts me in mind of the Weyl Limit which can treat Neutrino's as a massless particle - we don't obviously believe that neutrino's are in fact massless, but they have such a small mass they may as well act like Bosons. So in the same sense, I say that perhaps particles of any family are not dimensionless, but because they must be close to it, they more or less act like pointlike particles.

If you want, that was my verbal addressing towards a problem in physics.

The force equation

$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2$

$= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbb{I}$

$= F_{ij}^{2}$

Has a number of uses. Not once in physics literature have I found an equation which describes specifically the force in two distinct ways. In this equation, the force equation has a part:

$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}}$ [***]

which can describe the force (an exchange of a photon for instance, or a coupling of some external field due to spin-spin coupling which only would become apparent when the spin form $\hat{n} \cdot \sigma$ is involved), between two particles. For instance $r_{ij}$ measures the distance, so the force part denoted with [***] could describe a ''force exchange'' between two particles seperated by the same distance. At large distances the equation becomes invalid - So it is a good equation to locally approximate any force exchange. In a conventional approach, we may measure the distance in a unit vector, given as $\hat{n}$. As soon as we allow the spin to enter the equation,

$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2$

then the force is not only the ''connection'' between two particles at any two given locations, it also describes the force then along a specific directionality (along the axis of spin). As soon as a force interactions between the two particles this proportionally changes or dynamically influences the forces along a specific spin directionality.

I have never seen a ''force along a spin axis'' proposal in physics before. Usually when force is considered with spin, it is usually around as axis, or the forces resultant.

Of course, it also measures the magnetic moment in these equations, actually, it eventually described the gyromagnetic ratio for that spin as well, which is not a new approach, but applying it in the way I have, is, as far as I am aware.

It can be significant because for the first time I think for a local proximity between particles we could in principle measure spin-spin external field couplings and measure their effects for a particle moving along an axis of a specific directionality. It may for instance, have a profound effect as to change the direction of spin, if you have a force which is strong enough between the two particles.

No probs.

3. Or at large distances, the equation does not so much become invalid, but there is no interaction between the distance of the particles $r_{ij}$ so the dominant force is the force-spin along an axis.

5. In fact, I am well on my way for some new derivations. I have found out within the last couple of hours there are distinct ways of treating the equations in terms of the magnetic field.

7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
36,974
Reiku:

What kinds of particles? For example, particles like protons and neutrons are very much taken NOT to be pointlike.

What has being a boson got to do with mass? Aren't they independent?

I asked you to explain why this stuff is useful - i.e. what it is good for - not for more maths.

Why would that be useful? Why would we want to do that?

And this is significant because... ?

8. An electron, for instance. That is what I had in mind anyway in the OP since I defined the classical electron radius $\frac{e^2}{2mc^2}$.

9. I have in the last few hours came across what is called the Larmor interaction energy. It's appearance is similar to this force equation:

$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2$

In fact it is very similar, par a few differences:

$\Delta H_L = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2} \frac{\partial U (r)}{\partial r} L \cdot S$

$\frac{\partial U (r)}{\partial r}$

has the potential written with a $U$ instead of $V$ and the distances are not taking into question any other particles, just lone electrons by themselves. Already, I may provide the Larmor Energy with a new detailed description, I will call the Modified Larmor Energy. To do this, one must know the more compact form of the Larmor Energy is

$-\mu \cdot B$

This negative will cancel due to negative found in my equation when applied in motion. Thus to get the Larmor Energy in a form from

$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2$

We must see the

$\frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2} (L \cdot S)$ and exchange it for the understanding that the spin operations here:

$\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})$

in my original equation can be plugged in for the Larmor spin part. The magnetic moment part is replaced with

$\frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2}$

Thus our final equation has the form

$\Delta H_L = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2} \frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} L \cdot S = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2}\frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{J}^2 - \mathbf{L}^2 - \mathbf{S}^2)$

So due to the very similar nature of my equation and the Larmor Energy, one can easily derive the results for the Larmor Energy by a few simple mathematical gestures.

10. ### khanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
130
That helps some.

Leonard Susskind QM lectures

I don't plan on seriously studying these QM lectures yet, not until I have successfully absorbed all the classic physics. I watched the Susskind GR lectures up through lecture 11. Some of the GR lectures I watched twice, took notes, and researched GR books. I can't say that I am proficient in GR but I have learned enough to understand the hard work Einstein must have put into it.

Reiku, you appear to have learned some good physics but there seem to be gaps in your knowledge. Using the "infinite monkey theorem" approach to deriving a revolutionary new theory might be extremely improbable... :shrug:

11. hahaha

I never quite thought of it like that. Well... I have always wanted to go to university to take this further... but I simply

A) Don't have the money
B) And extremely pressed with time at the mo

So all I have done the last 2-3 years is teach myself vigorously from of course, Susskind lectures... (did all those classical ones... you'll enjoy ''new revelations in particle physics'' that was very eye-opening). Emmm... and a few other vids, books, generally anything I could work with and eventually the more I learned, the more I could move onto harder physics, a bit like what you are doing. There are of course, still holes there which I am planning to fix. Sometimes the relevant information is never there easily to be grasped or if it is, no one is there to take you through it half the time.

12. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
36,974
Reiku:

Which anomalous interactions?

13. It is known, that no equation can fully describe a system 100%... so we may believe then that we can only modify certain equations to suit a more detailed and more accurate picture of some interaction of systems.

So anything which is not (catagorized within) that percentage of accuracy remain unnaccounted for. So we may use my equation for instance, to fill in those percentage gaps, such as the motion of any particles which cannot be described in any terms alone of a force along an axis, but also those effects taking into account of interactions between particles.

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
36,974
Known by whom? Surely certain systems can be fully described by an equation - especially simple ones.

So, how about you answer the question I asked: which "anomalous interactions we did not take into account simultaneously" does your work in this thread help to explain?

Which particular systems are you talking about? Which particular anamalous interactions? And how does your work help sort out the problem?

Can you please give me an example of a particle that cannot be described in any terms alone of a force along an axis?

15. Right, you are correct. Sorry, I don't mean like simple equations which in theory might describe a classical motion for instance. I mean purely quantum mechanical - for instance, I watched a program recently on the Dirac Equation where the presenter said,

''Dirac created an equation which described electrons to almost near accuracy.''

We actually have no other equation which can describe fermions any more accurate, but it does show that perhaps certain equations can never fully describe a system 100 percent due to error.

These errors are made up with new interactions. Most of these interactions will be external thermal background noises. One such case given by my equation, describes how two particle maybe very close, then the force (as describes between two particles) is not only the ''connection'' (or force) between two particles at any two given locations, it also describes the force then along a specific directionality (along the axis of spin). As soon as a force interactions between the two particles this proportionally changes or dynamically influences the forces along a specific spin directionality. On one particle, the background interference is the quantum effects from the local particle which may be accounted for.

Not all quantum motions can be vigourously tested and measured, due to the Uncertainty Principle in technical terms, which you yourself know all about.

But in theory we can test it to a degree, but suppose that a particle (in a system of particles) moved along a specific trajectory but showed a small anomalous movement which was not accounted for. One such approach might be the effects from the surrounding bath, from other particles in the phase space. So my equations approach is an application [at least in theory] which may account for forces when we need to calculate them.

Yeh, zero spin particles. They may have a force in a particular direction but not along any spin axis.

16. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Yes, crap.
You mean gems like this, I suppose:
which is an automatical fail in linear algebra. Can you see why?

17. You do realize there where many parts of that removed to save latex time?

Or did you not read it either?

18. I still don't care what you have to say. The derivation is irrelevant and pointless really. All you need to know is that the final result is viable.

You just went out your way to cause trouble for me, as usual. It's obvious.

19. I shake my head and go

DOH!

I think I now remember the video this was extracted from... I have watched all his video's and the one lot I think it has tangential relevance to was his quantum entanglement courses...

20. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You don't love physics, not in the good honest wholesome sense. Your behaviour implies you realise there's a certain amount of prestige or positive implication about being competent at physics/mathematics on forums like this and you wish to be seen in a good light on such matters.

If you were really in it for the physics you'd be making an effort to actually learn physics, rather than parrot back expressions you don't understand. It's almost a matter of respect for physics (though physics isn't a singular thing like a person) or rather your lack of respect for it. You aren't interested in scientific understanding or investigation, you just want to be seen to be doing something complicated.

Your actions smack of an insecurity about yourself. And before you wheel out the "Oh so you're a PhD in psychology now are you?!" I'm giving my views based on my experiences interacting with people, both inside and outside of the scientific community. Perhaps if you'd actually attempted to go to university to do a science and had a trial by fire you'd have become much more comfortable (and realistic) about yourself but you haven't.

You're obviously not paying any attention to what I write. I often wonder if you bother to read the posts of mine you quote, you rarely seem to pick up salient points I make.

For example, my "You plagiarised that stuff about neutrinos/tachyons" comments I explained differently to how you represent it. You obviously don't know spinor quantum field theory. You obviously don't know stuff required 4 years before university students get to quantum field theory. As such whenever you post such material you're parroting other people, mindlessly. That is plagiarism, as it is trying to present yourself as knowledgeable by presenting things you don't understand and are mindlessly parroting. Shuffling around the equations doesn't change that. I could pick out random words from a Chinese/English translation dictionary and form 'sentences' but it would be ridiculous for me to claim I can speak Chinese simply because no one explicitly told me those sentences.

There's more to "This is my own novel work" than "No one else has ever said this". It has to be something you understand, something you put together using reason and logic, not random permutations of equations you've found by Google searching for particular buzzwords.

Part of the reason people think so poorly of you is you fail to grasp this rather basic concept.

As above.

That wouldn't negate what I just said. You would still be mangling together expressions you don't understand in ways which are meaningless because you don't understand how to combine expressions you read, if they can even be combined.

Your spelling and grammar are always extremely poor. They have been like that for years. Despite being told many many times you don't bother to even get a web browser with a spell check built into it. Actually, they all have spell checkers now. Turn it on!

Except that the proof is a very simple one which anyone covering Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics learns. You have made many posts talking about Lagrangians and Hamiltonians and their associated equations. They are both used everywhere in quantum field theory and general relativity. In fact the proof that $\partial_{t}(T-V) = 0 \rightarrow \partial_{t}(T+V) = 0$ is little more than an application of those equations.

You've just shown, again, that you don't know basic quantum field theory/general relativity. The manner in which you get the Dirac equation or the Einstein field equations is an application of precisely the same method! You cannot say all the "I understand all that about quantum field theory" or "I'm familiar with that in general relativity" you spew yet turn around and say what you just said. It's like claiming you understand multiplication but then say "Addition? What's that?".

You're always doing this. You don't understand which bits of mathematics/physics build on which so you'll say "Well I don't know everything! X is something I haven't learnt about!" right after saying "Of course I understand Y! Look, here's some work on it!", not realising understanding of Y is impossible without understanding of X. It's like how you like to talk about spinor wave equations but you couldn't even understand a solution to simple harmonic motion!

Time and again you get caught in your own web of lies.

Nothing you've said has any bearing on the size of particles. Furthermore a particles mass has no bearing on it being a boson or not. Massless fermions are fine, as are massive bosons. Again, another little nugget of evidence you don't grasp even simple concepts.

It has no uses because it's nonsense. The matrix bit is irrelevant, you're just stating a well known identity. The other bit though is where the flaw lies. You say that

$(-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}}$

That is obviously false. $\partial^{2}A^{2}$ is not the same as $(\partial A)^{2}$. The first is the second derivative of $A^{2}$ while the second is the square of the first derivative of A. In fact the latter expression just has too many squared's in it at all. It's like you know you're supposed to put some 2's somewhere, you just don't know where so you put it everywhere.

Except you don't describe it in two distinct ways, unless you think $2^{2}$ and 4 count as two distinct numbers? All you do is manipulate the matrices using well known identities. You haven't shown two seemingly unrelated quantities are related, you've just rearranged, incorrectly, a very basic expression.

Also, it's pretty daft of you to say "Not once in the literature have I found..." since you don't understand the literature so you wouldn't know such an occurrence if it snuck up behind you and gave you a prostate check.

The unit vector in the expressions you give is not to do with the line joining two particles together. It is representing the direction of a spin alignment, which is a different concept. This is what happens when you stumble about in equations you don't understand, you think "I've seen unit vectors before, they are to do with difference between positions. It must be to do with that!" and then it turns out to be wrong.

You haven't applied anything, you've hardly done anything at all. Even if your result were valid and not nonsense you've failed to show any derivation. You get your information from lecture courses, where much of the details and derivations are skipped over, left for the students to read in textbooks. Someone presenting a new result has to lay out every single step in a clear and precise manner. A new result claiming to do what you claim your result does would be in a paper pages and pages in length. Papers under 5 pages on topics like this are eye brow raisingly short. The sum total of the non-defining notation stuff you've done is probably under a page. Not to mention you always use mathematics almost remedial in its complexity. Sure, you talk about spin matrices etc but all you ever do with them is multiply or add. Your level of innumeracy prevents you even making up interesting or elaborate mathematical nonsense. The best you can manage is to parrot some definitions in bra-ket notation.

I really hope you don't believe what you're posting. You're detached from reality if you do.

In Scotland it's free, the amount it costs you to live right now is the amount it'll cost to go to university. And what is taking up so much of your time? You said you have 4 hours a day to work on this stuff.

But maybe you're just making excuses for yourself, since in reality a good university like Edinburgh would never let you in.

He spent 2 minutes going out of his way to point out a mistake you made, thus demonstrating criticisms of you are not without reason. You've gone 2~5 years out of your way to accomplish nothing but be exposed as a liar.

Go you.

And every single person here who actually has gone to university to do a science thinks you're deluding yourself and terrible at all of it.

Well done, you've squandered 2~5 years of your life. Go you.

21. True.

Just write it out then like you have. Doesn't invalidate it completely. One small error which can BE RECTIFIED easily.

Stop making mountains out of molehills.

22. If that is your basis for invalidating my work, I'd say that was relatively weak coming from you... what's wrong AN... could you not find anything more incriminating?

Awww