Doesn't the proton participate in all force fields though its association with the postive charge and the proton mass? If we begin with this Uniton, and have our proton oscillating between postive and negative charge, the negative proton not able to exist at the same extreme energy as the proton. It becomes the electron for higher stabilty. This is prevented from going back to positive. I create as I learn.
you need to carefully measure the mass of a particle, before you speculate on the mass of the first universal particle. Charges are like a by-product of conservation. If you study a part of an equation like, let us say, \(e(\psi^{\dagger} \psi A_0 + \psi^{\dagger} \alpha_i \psi A_i)\) there is an absoroption and a state of emmitance, which has all to do with probability and conservation. Conservation is a very delicate detail... it involves charge and mass... it involves our most primal particle... and for simplicity, let us assume it's name should be a Uniton Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Looks like all you've done is expand out \(\gamma^{a}A_{a} = \beta^{0}A_{0}+\alpha_{i}A_{i} = \mathbb{I}A_{0}+\alpha_{i}A_{i}\) in part of the QED Lagrangian. You use a notation not commonly used but which you've used in previous accounts. Conservation doesn't follow from that term. In fact that term follows from conservation requirements, you have it backwards! This is the sort of stuff I've been asking you to elaborate on and now you've unwittingly done it you've demonstrated you don't understand. Reiku, don't you have anything else to do with your life? While browsing SciForums I came across a thread of yours from 3+ years ago and you were doing then as you do now. Back then you were claiming to be doing curvature and quantum field theory in school, but you weren't. If you'd actually begun a proper education then by now you'd actually be doing that stuff. Instead you're stuck still lying to people online, even after they've seen through your lies. I really don't understand what drives you, it must be some deep psychological issue that you have to lie so much, so often, so blatantly. As for the longer post of your responding to my last one, I'll reply to it later, I have to go to work now.
Do you really have a PhD???? You do realize, when you describe the decay of a particle (which the above equation can be read as) it conserves charge by the particle emitted and absorbed? How can you, as an honest scientist, say that conservation cannot be taken from it?
I'd like to refine what I said about the UP and inertia. I re-read what I wrote before, and it was messy the way it was written. Resistence in a change of motion is the presence of inertia. Particles at the subatomic level are never at rest, they resist being at a single point in space over lengthly periods of time. If they resist at being at a certain point in space over lenghly periods of time, then this is actually the same as saying it is resisting a change in its motion. This is synonymous to the definition that inertia is a resistance to a change in motion. There are similarities. Of course, Motz shows in his paper that particle mass and the radius of a particle has an uncertainty relationship.
No, because a particular process conserving something doesn't mean all processes will. Some, but not all, processes conserve lepton number. CP violation wasn't discovered until the 60s, until that point all observed processes conserved it. Conservation of charge doesn't follow from the fact you write part of the Lagrangian in that manner. If you knew any field theory and gauge theory you'd know why that term arises in the Lagrangian and what it means. But you don't, you clutch at straws desperately trying to look like you understand this stuff. You failed. Anyway, to your post.... I'm not here pretending to do science. I do science day in, day out. I don't need to come to forums and pretend. So it's my fault you have poor communication skills? As a 13 year old I knew what a square root was, what powers were and basic algebra (ie the use of x to represent unknowns etc). Nothing you'd done is beyond that. I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse. I said I wasn't asking because I didn't know, I was asking because I don't think you know. Your "Look in the papers" is avoidance. I want you to explain it in your own words and you have again replied with avoidance. How do you not understand that? I explicitly explained it. The conclusion is you do understand but you don't want to answer, lest you be caught making more mistakes. I know what you're trying to refer to. It also means I can spot mistakes in what you're saying. You're taking something from a specific example and making general statements. Can you tell me what it is? Go on, I'm giving you a chance. I've given you plenty of opportunities to step up Reiku, not for the first time. If you could you would, you clearly are desperate for people to think you understand this stuff. Why you don't realise you're so transparent I don't know. That you think you're developing some new result about the UP. You didn't even know it applies to things with mass. Mass has nothing to do with the UP, it's about expectation values of commutations of particular operators unrelated to mass. You'd know this if you'd studied it rather than spewing out buzzwords you saw on Wikipedia. Where did I say that? I said it applies to objects with mass and objects which move. What logic is that? Your conclusion doesn't follow your assumption. Just like you supposedly got a paper accepted for publication something like 18 months ago and it never appeared? Just like you learnt GR and QFT in college 4 years ago? Just like you're going to one day be a PhD in physics? Just like \((a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2}+b^{2}-2abi\)? Your grammar hasn't improved I see. You were wrong about charges and Lie algebras, particles with mass under the UP, the origins of charge conservation, ..... need I go on? Too vivid to even produce it seems. You've given expressions like a=g, \(M_{i}a = Mg\), \(\mu = \sqrt{GM}\). Nothing beyond teenagers. You dress it up with fancy names and drop in buzzwords but none of the actual mathematics you've given is beyond teenagers. You might think they are complicated but its only because you have such a poor grasp yourself. I'm not saying I could do it at 13, I'm saying it's at a level of material covered by standard education courses in the Western World for people of that age. Square roots, ratios, powers. All stuff covered by kids, literally kids. If you had done quantum field theory, to the point of knowing about electroweak symmetry breaking in gauge theories, you'd be talking about the actual relevant stuff, not providing remedial mathematics with high level buzzwords. It is the calling card of someone who knows nothing but wants to appear like they know the details. People who really understand this stuff do not present their 'work' as you have, they do not evade direct questions, they do not make elementary mistakes and then avoid facing up to them. Last week I meet and discussed research with two maths professors (separately) and both of them repeatedly said things like "I don't know much about that, it isn't my area". I repeatedly said things like "This is probably a stupid question but how does...." and then ask something fairly simple with regards to their research areas. That is how honest discussion on research level material goes, not your evasive vapid nonsense. If you pressed Prometheus, Guest, Temur, Quarkhead, Cpt, Ben, or myself about our research areas we'd be able to dial the conservation to the appropriate level. We wouldn't need to be evasive (other than when talking about works in progress or confidential stuff), we know of what we speak. Go on, I'll give you another chance. Why don't you elaborate on the thing I asked you to before. And why don't you give some details about your current new result related to the UP?
I think you just post things, sometimes, in a desperate attempt to say something anyway. I've seen it with some of your posts. If someone isn't wrong, you tend to say something anyway, and it's relevence is debatable.
I'll give you an example. I told you, admitted if you like the equations where basic. Yet you still refer to me as though I am dressing them up as something else. If you read the links, you would, as I am sure other people can see, why I posted what I did, and why I derived the inertial energy equation for the quantization method.
I have no current result on the UP. I have explained this as well. I see no reason answering the rest of your post.
Now, for the sake of a correction. It was said by the previous poster that: ''Mass has nothing to do with the UP, it's about expectation values of commutations of particular operators unrelated to mass. '' This is actually false. There is a relationship between the uncertainty principle and the mass of a particle. This relationship is between mass and the radius, and you can find this in: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf
This relationship, is that when measurements are made to determine the mass of a particle, the more uncertain is the radius of curvature which it occupies. This relationship is given as: \(\Delta R Mc \geq h\) The smallest uncertainty exists at the planck length.
Wow is that ever projection! Yes, it's called informed discussion. Give it a try some time. You haven't 'derived' anything. If you'd truly learnt this stuff you'd know what sort of level of detail is required to consider something 'derived'. What that refers to is the combination of the UP with relativity. The UP is a general statement about the fact conjugate variables do not commute, such as x and p or E and t. If you then include relativity then you can relate E to M and things like curvature of space-time but whether or not the UP is applicable is not to do with mass. Particles with and without mass obey the UP. If you'd actually done all of this stuff you'd know that quantisation is obtained by transforming classical Poisson brackets {a,b} to commutation relations \(\frac{1}{i\hbar}[a,b]\) where \(\{a,b\} = \frac{\partial a}{\partial q} \frac{\partial a}{\partial p}-\frac{\partial a}{\partial p} \frac{\partial a}{\partial q}\) where q and p are conjugate variables as defined by a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian and so {q,p} = 1*1 - 0*0 = 1 and thus [q,p] = \(i\hbar\). At no point does mass need to be mentioned, it is purely about the symplectic structure of the coordinates which define the Hamiltonian. What a surprise, you skip the bit where I challenge you to show you grasp something which requires more than just Google searches and reading Wikipedia. Funny that. For example, that stuff on Poisson brackets is covered in quantum mechanics and classical dynamics courses, stuff taught in the years before doing quantum field theory. It took 2 minutes to type out and if you had known it it would have taken you that long to type it out and put me in my place but instead you made excuses. There, in 3 lines I managed more advanced stuff than you've done in 3 pages.
See, I have shown in direct contradiction to your statement there is no relationship with mass and the UP. Turns out the radius is complimentary in this sense, and so there is a relationship.
Your original statement about mass and the UP wasn't that you could construct a mass related UP expression but that you said the following things : "D) Those which have a mass can only be logically attributed to the UP The uncertainty principle will only allow understanding of it's inequality concerning particles which are at near rest. There is no point applying this principle to particles which have been favourably called Luxons. These speedy particles, cannot be applied to a certain point in space, because they experience no time. Relativity immediately admits that particles which travel at the speed of light, have no inertia... How can they if they are to permit the rulebook of the WEP?" and "The fact I said something at rest is not appliable to something at relativistic speeds, or the other part... god knows what???" You stated the UP was dependent upon the mass of the particle, that if something was moving quickly then the UP didn't apply and you related this to rest mass. That isn't true, the UP applies to electrons moving slowly, electrons moving quickly and to photons too. It was a famous thought experiment discussed by Bohr and Einstein to consider a timing device which emitted a photon in a precise way, as one attempted to convince the other the UP could be evaded (he was wrong). The UP is about conjugate variables being simultaneously measured. If those are x and p rest mass has nothing to do with it. If they are E and t then you can start relating things to mass via relativity. Motz doesn't actually prove they are conjugate. He doesn't even state a proper UP relation. The UP relation is generically of the form \(\Delta q \, \Delta p \geq k\hbar\) where k is some constant. It is a simple homework problem to derive this from \([q,p] = i\hbar\). Motz doesn't show that \([R,m] \neq 0\) or that \(\Delta R \, \Delta m \geq k\hbar\), he just says \(\Delta R \geq \ldots\). Motz might have been a very good astronomer but quantum gravity doesn't seem to have been his thing. For instance, his comments around Eqn(3) are dubious. He uses D instead of \(\Delta\), which is bad notation because \(\Delta = D^{2}\) where D is the Dirac operator and then goes on to say that R is the square root of the space-time interval. That is an incorrect thing to say, he means either the curvature of space-time at a location or he means a coefficient or component of the space-time interval (which turns out to be the same once you do the appropriate differential geometry). His reference 7 is a paper he wrote almost 2 decades previous. You search Google for "quantised gravitational charge" and this thread is the number one hit! The 6th hit is this thread where the two posters are both people banned from this forum for posting crap, Vern and, surprise surprise, Reiku's account, your account. Relating a length scale to a mass scale is a trivial matter in relativity, it follows from the particular way non-dimensional quantities are produced. Mass goes like inverse length so small lengths mean bigger masses. This is why the Planck length is so small but the Planck mass so large. If you have an uncertainty in a mass then you have an uncertainty in its associated length scale. Furthermore you can associate the mass with curvature in space-time and thus an uncertainty in one is related to an uncertainty in the other. This is not surprising but it doesn't mean that someone saying that has manifestly demonstrated the conjugate nature of particular variables. I shouldn't be having to walk you through this if you knew about this. Messing around with the UP, knowing how to derive it, knowing about conjugate variables. These are all stuff done in 1st courses in QM yet you seem unfamiliar with them while simultaneously claiming to know gauge theory. Why don't you step up and elaborate on the things I asked you? If I'm so wrong and you're so right it shouldn't be difficult. I type my posts off the top of my head, I don't need to go look things up. If you're dabbling with deriving new results for the UP you should have it all at the front of your mind. Instead whenever someone scratches the surface you fail to stand up to it. You make a statement like the UP not applying to fast particles, I correct you and we go down this road where I have to explain to you, multiple times, how the derivation of the UP isn't to do with mass but just conjugate variables. You then view this as me saying there's no way uncertainty can arise in mass, when I explicitly state energy can be a variable in the UP and it relates to mass. Then I have to explain to you conjugate variables. x and p don't commute, regardless of their expected values, because they are operators. The operators are like matrices, their commutation relations are independent of what states they eventually are applied to. The states define whether or not a particle is moving or has some particular spin alignment or energy, which doesn't have any impact on the relationship between operators. This is QM 101. But Reiku, you've previously shown you don't grasp the notion of operators and elements in Hilbert spaces. It took many corrections to get you to realise a wavefunction doesn't generically obey \(\psi^{\dag}\psi = 1\), the normalisation condition is different. How many more posts, how many more accounts, how many more years are you going to keep doing this?
In fact, on further reflection Motz next statement after Eqn 3 is categorically wrong. He says that you obtain \(i\gamma^{a}\nabla_{a}R = 1\) by factorising \(D\psi(x) = \frac{\hbar^{2}}{R^{2}}\psi(x)\). I can see how someone might make that mistake. Using \(D = \hbar^{2}\Delta\) and the Clifford algebra properties of the Dirac matrices we can take the 'square root' of this operator to get \(\hbar^{2}\Delta = (i\hbar \gamma^{a}\nabla_{a}) (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}) = (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\). Thus you could make the mistaken step of saying that \( (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\psi = \left(\frac{\hbar}{R}\right)^{2}\psi(x)\) implies \(i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R}\) and therefore \(i \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}R = 1\). Utterly wrong. Firstly \(i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}\) is an operator, it has to be applied to something to really make sense, while \(\frac{1}{R}\) is just a function (or even a constant!). The equation \( (i\hbar \gamma^{b}\nabla_{b})^{2}\psi = \left(\frac{\hbar}{R}\right)^{2}\psi(x)\) constrains the form of \(\psi\) to be a particular form. Saying \(i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R}\) here is literally like saying \(\frac{d}{dx} = \frac{1}{5}\). Furthermore \(i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b} = \frac{1}{R}\) doesn't rearrange to give \(i\gamma^{b}\nabla_{b}R = 1\), it's like saying \(\frac{d5}{dx} = 1\) after saying \(\frac{d}{dx} = \frac{1}{5}\). At best he's been so poor with his explanations he's coming across as wrong and at worst he's just plain wrong. That might explain why his reference is to his own work from 15 years ago, no one else developed it.
I have work to go to, so I cannot answer all of this, this morning - but if you can't technically slow down a photon, how can you locally define it sitting in a spacetime region over a lengthly time, as you would need to make it's trajectory uncertain?
I agree with this. It would seem Motz has made a mathematical error here. However this is only one part of his work. I need to Look again, but I do believe the quantization method which makes \(\hbar c = GM^2\) is true when you take his method, thus he retrieves the square of the form \(GM\), I assume quickly as \(\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{M}} = \sqrt{GM}\). I will get his work to display. I'll get to the pervious post soon.
