Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Question ? Field Density vs. Wave form ?

  1. Jun 5, 2004 #1
    Question ?? Field Density vs. Wave form ?

    I have a question for you all.

    ok, there appears in my head two forms of stuff.

    the first stuff is expansive, into infinity, and functions as a field. Gravity, and electromagnetic fields seem to be of this stuff. These "wave" forms in particular seem to cascade away from the core, at an X^2 or X^3 ratio. The ambience of the sun often feels like this.

    The second stuff is self eating. it is circular. It is a lazy 8. A loop of a wave form. Essentially, this stuff is what my jellotivity theory (not to be confused with jellytivity) or aether theory, might call particles. You see, to me, an object, per-se, is a relationship between different "flows" or circuits of aether.
    I stopped using the term spacetime, because spacetime itself seems to be part of these circuits, not the circuits themselves.

    now, one way of looking at it, is the first stuff would be like bosons, and the second stuff would be fermions, but that's only a vague connection. I know there's something more to it than this.

    To me, a photon is a "wave packet", just like a stream of waves from a laser. sort of a "ball". This ball could also be seen on a larger scale as the Earth as a whole, (magnetosphere and all) or the sun.

    Using the earth/sun model, what I'm getting at, is that the first type of stuff is like the gravity, magnetosphere, and field emmissions (such as from the sun) which decay exponentially as you leave the surface,
    while the earth/solid surface, the physical "ball" you see of the sun with its nuclear core etc., is the second stuff.

    I think that this same model exists on the quantum scale, for all "particles". That is to say, that fermions and bosons, arent distinct, but reflections of the same mechanism, although it would seem that these mechanisms might be able to produce both "fields" and "wave packets"

    Any ideas ? (besides anyons ?)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 5, 2004 #2
    The density of the gravitational field is the mass density.

    The density of the electric field is the electric charge density.

    The density of the magnetic field is the current density. There is a subtle connection between charge density and current density because current are just the motion of electric charge. If this motion is uniform, there is no EM radiation. But if the motion is noneuniform and accelerated then EM radiation is given out.

    In QM, this EM radiation became quantized in the form of photon. Photon became the wave form messenger that move and communicate and change the field density from point to point within the framework of each particular field totality. For the gravity field, this messenger wave form is the not yet detected graviton. For the strong nuclear force field, this messenger particle is the gluon. For the electroweak force field, the wave form messengers are the Ws, the Zs and again the photon.

    The above fields are all vector fields. That is to say there is a force associated with each field. But in the field of the false vacuum or the Higgs field, no force can be detected. This seems to indicate that there is no wave form messenger for the vacuum field. Yet a hypothesize particle exists called the Higgs boson. This is a scalar boson in contrast to a vector boson with force mentioned above. The density of the Higgs field must be infinite or in other words, there is no gap between one Higgs boson and its close neighbors. So the wave form of the Higgs boson cannot be detected because they never move from point to point in the field.
     
  4. Jun 6, 2004 #3
    quantum field theory

    I guess what I'm asking, is do you think that centralized fermion-styled energy sources might actually emit a cascade wave out to infinity, and do you think oppositely boson-styled wave forms might have a centralized core, on perhaps a 9 dimensional map ?

    What I'm thinking, is the idea that fermions might transition somehow, their impact on spacetime to ad-infinitum, with exponetial decay, but not through their independent wave fields, but through the transmutation of the energy form into boson fields.

    This would be a different way of looking at fermions and bosons, but I think it might work.

    I've also noted that if quantum substances, like particles or "packets" are anything like their celestial big brothers (stars and planets) they might experience a "total global magnetic polarity shift cycle" as the sun and earth's magnetic poles flip regularly.

    I think if this is true on a quantum scale, we might find that while transitioning from strange and charmed, up and down, etc., that quantum particles might become "anyons" for a transition period, also we might experience a matter-antimatter cycle within the working parts of atoms.

    I think we might see something similar to a cycle that looks something like this

    electron-neutrino-positron-neutrino-electron etc.

    And based upon frequency of the vibration of the partlce, and its total wave distortion (sort of like mass, but including some other factors) it would have an "internal" clock, which occassionally would line up with the other particles around it.
     
  5. Jun 6, 2004 #4
    My theory for fermionic and bosonic structures are given briefly by matrix notations:

    Supposed [itex]H^{+}[/itex] and [itex]H^{-}[/itex] are matrices and [itex]H^{-}[/itex] is the unit of a fermion and [itex]H^{+}[/itex] is the unit for a boson, then their interactions is applied by the following rules.

    Matrix additions give the value of electric charge. Matrix multiplications give the value of mass. And matrices can interact only if they are of the same order. Further rules of multiplication are:

    [itex]H^{+}[/itex][itex]H^{+}[/itex] = [itex] \alpha H^{+}[/itex]
    [itex]H^{-}[/itex][itex]H^{-}[/itex] = [itex] \beta H^{+}[/itex]
    [itex]H^{+}[/itex][itex]H^{-}[/itex] = [itex] \gamma H^{-}[/itex]

    [itex]\alpha[/itex] and [itex]\beta[/itex] are kinetic masses. [itex]\gamma [/itex] is potential mass.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?