Structure of Matter/Energy Crazy Idea

[Edwin]

Another concept related to the results above are as follows.

I was considering the difference between the characteristics of Rayleigh wave velocities through a medium (X such as a dense plasma), or longitudinal sound wave velocities through a medium (Y such as the low density atmosphere earth).

The main difference between these two different types of waves that caught my eye is that Rayleigh wave velocities through a given medium are a function of the mediums depth and the "frequency" of the Rayleigh wave itself. Transverse waves, Longitudinal waves, and most other types of waves velocity value is independant of those waves frequencies, unlike the special case of Rayleigh waves. Yet, theoretically, all types of waves, including Rayleigh waves, are subject to Dr. Ivanov's lively standing wave interference patterns, which is a universal wave phenomenon. The idea is that if one were to use two Chirp pulse laser transmissions to superpose two Opposite vector Rayleigh chirp signals into a dense plasma that conducts Rayleigh type wave, the velocity of the higher frequency portion of each transmission would travel faster through the plasma, then the lower frequency transmission. If everything were set up correctly, the higher frequency portion of each laser transmission would catch up to the lower frequency portion of the each laser transmission, and all waves within each transmission would "pile up" eventually leading to a single huge pulse within the dense plasma.

Now suppose that one were to set up two lasers as follows:

laser 1, at one end of the plasma chamber were to emit a high frequency laser transmission that decreases in frequency continsuously to a lower frequency laser transmission as time passes.

laser 2 at the other end of the plasma chamber emits a low frequency laser transmission that increases frequency continuously to a higher frequency laser transmission as time passes.

The two laser transmissions meet and interact in the plasma to form "lively standing Rayleigh waves" interference pattern. However; as the frequency of laser 1 is decompressed and the frequency of laser 2 compressed over time, each laser lights' transmission is conducted by the plasma at different phase velocities in such a way as to pile up not only the two laser transmissions into a pulse, but also the "lively standing Rayleigh wave" is piled up into one highly amplified directional energy pulse that would manifest as an extremely powerful laser induced plasma shock-wave that is far more powerful then the same lively standing wave interference patterns would induce in the other types of waves (e.i. transverse, longitudinal,...etc).

If so, then such a concept may have applications in propulsion.

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[PFanalog57]

Dr. Milo Wolff has some interesting ideas:

http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/PNASLast.html

Wheeler and Feynman5 (1945) modeled the electron as spherical inward and outward electromagnetic waves, seeking to explain radiation forces. Unhappily they failed because there are no spherical solutions of vector electromagnetic wave equations. Nevertheless, their work pioneered the concept that every particle sends quantum waves outward, and receives an inward response from the universe. In hindsight, if they had used scalar quantum waves instead, this paper would have appeared 55 years ago! So close and yet so far! "A hair’s breadth separates the false and true."

 

[Edwin]

Thanks Russell,

I spent all morning pooring over Dr. Wolff's remarkable work! I've taken some notes, and will study this over the next couple of weeks as it no doubt compatible with Dr. Ivanov's work. The frequency shift and corresponding lively standing wave patterns Dr. Ivanov stumbled onto in his experimental work may very well be explained by this model as a function of the mechanism in Principle III the Minimum Amplitude Principle. I will study this some more, and try to find out what terms, or if terms, in Dr. Wolff's equations may be substituded with terms from Dr. Ivanov's work so that we can observe the equivalence of the two models. I believe that Dr. Ivanov's work may be a smaller mechanism in the larger more general realm of the physical principles described Dr. Wolff's work.

Best Regards,

Edwin

 

[PFanalog57]

Thanks Russell,

I spent all morning pooring over Dr. Wolff's remarkable work! I've taken some notes, and will study this over the next couple of weeks as it no doubt compatible with Dr. Ivanov's work. The frequency shift and corresponding lively standing wave patterns Dr. Ivanov stumbled onto in his experimental work may very well be explained by this model as a function of the mechanism in Principle III the Minimum Amplitude Principle. I will study this some more, and try to find out what terms, or if terms, in Dr. Wolff's equations may be substituded with terms from Dr. Ivanov's work so that we can observe the equivalence of the two models. I believe that Dr. Ivanov's work may be a smaller mechanism in the larger more general realm of the physical principles described Dr. Wolff's work.

Best Regards,

Edwin

Symmetry forms the basis of truth.

http://www.bigear.org/vol1no4/wheeler.htm

COSMIC SEARCH: You have often commented that the greatest discoveries of science are yet to come. What do you have in mind?

Wheeler: To me, the greatest discovery yet to come will be to find how this universe, coming into being from a Big Bang, developed its laws of operation. I call this "Law without Law" [Or "Order from Disorder"].

A simple diagram/equation:

|{real n-dimensions = ct }
|
|
|
|<--------{quantum vacuum ~ ict}
|
|
|
|
|{ct}

Reality is a damped harmonic oscillation, a system at resonance, [hypothetically speaking]:

{ict}^2 + {ct}^2 = 0

A quantum field unites gravity and electromagnetism.

Gravity becomes a refractive/compression effect, as light cones are rotated near a massive object:

F = m*m'/d^2

F = A/r^4 , Casimir effect

F = q*q'/r^2 electric force

m = mass

A = 2 dimensional area

q = electric charge

r = distance

The Topological spaces are defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles[manifolds] are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system.

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of space itself.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as a sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are defined by density gradients. A compression force.

Resonating standing waves.


[<-[-><-]->]

Feynman was able to simplify the matrix calculations, with simple diagrams.

 

[PFanalog57]

At extremely small distance scales(Planck length), does space become a superconductive Bose Einstein condensate? What does quantum chromodynamics say about the possibility?

A distance/metric is a property of space and what exactly is ...space?

 

[PFanalog57]

Dr. Wolff's theory rings true!

Milo Wolff - Quantum waves were first described by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, de Broglie and others. They originated the word. We use the same name as those quantum waves which are already known by that name because such waves have already been discovered. The special 'quantized' meaning is because the energy transfers always occur in discrete amounts or 'quanta". I suppose we could avoid the use of the word 'quantum waves' if we wanted to. But that would be a sort of scientific plagiarism. I see the problem here: Most people have no feeling for the word quantum so it is useless to use it until they do. We could start off with just 'waves' and then add the less-observable quantum wave meaning later, with a careful explanation. This is a knotty problem.

My book 'Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe' has a chapter titled "All about Waves" which discusses some of your questions. But the clear distinction between vector and scalar waves HAS to be made in the readers mind, otherwise the logic following will have no impact. So we have to bring this out with strong emphasis. I will use examples.

SCALAR WAVES. - Pressure is a scalar quantity because it needs only ONE number at each point in space to describe it. That quantity is always an AMPLITUDE of the quantity at each point. Thus sound waves, Earth quake waves, and underwater waves are all scalar waves where the wave amplitude is pressure in the medium. Money, counting, age, etc are also scalar quantities.

VECTOR WAVES. - These waves are already familiar to you. The most important example is electromagnetic waves which need to have TWO quantities at each point to describe the wave. The two quantities are amplitude and direction. This combination of these two quantities is termed a vector. A vector can always be represented by an arrow where the direction is the way the arrow points and the amplitude is the length of the arrow.
Vector waves simply do NOT have either the physical or math properties needed. Did I tell you of the math saying, "You cannot comb the hair on a billiard ball". This proves in a simple way that spherical waves CANNOT be vector. Combed hair is a vector. If you try to place it on a sphere (ball), you will get a 'cowlick' in one place, so the spherical symmetry is impossible.

 

[Edwin]

I think that is very interesting: ict^2+ct^2=0.

If particles time values can be described in terms of imaginary components, and real components, such that below Planckian time scales, the time value by a variation of the equation you mentioned above: nict^2+mct^2=[-planck time,planck time]; negative Planck time<0<planck time, and n^2+m^2=1={cos(theta), sin(theta)} are variables, then the different time states between sub-planckian time scales could be described by an infinite series of right triangles cos(theta)ict^2+sin(theta)ct^2={x|x=[-planck-time, Planck-time], -plancktime<0<plancktime}. If so, then the transition of a virtual particle between say Planck-time to negative Planck-time, would be a 180 degree rotation of the particles phase. As cos(0)->cos(90), x transitions from Planck-time to negative Planck-time. However, on the complex plane, (x, iy) the transition of Planck-time to negative Planck-time would be described by the rotation of an angle 180 degrees, instead of 90 degrees. So cos(0)->cos(360), would translate to a phase rotation on the complex plane of 0 degrees->720 degrees phase rotation. The question I have is, does the current model describe the transition of a given quantum value of a virtual particle from a real component to an imaginary component, and then back to a real component in terms of a 720 degrees phase rotation on the complex plane?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[Edwin]

I was working out the equation for three oscillators in a given energy system to incorporate some of the information you had mentioned and stumbled onto something that should easily reveal a potential flaw in my methods of evaluating the math, or the theory itself.

According to Dr. Ivanov, the equation for lively standing wave velocity in alternating electronic circuits is

Ve=c(v1-v2)/(v1+v2), where v1 is the frequency of one oscillator, and v2 is the frequency of another oscillator. I used substitution to reduce the equation to make the equation easier to solve, by allowing v2 to be described in terms of v1, a little trick I learned in Algebra class way back when.

v1=v1,

Let v2=v1-x, where x is the difference in frequency, frequency gradient, between oscillator v1, and v2.

then Dr. Ivanovs equation would read,

Ve=c[v1-(v1-x)]/[v1+(v1-x)=cx/2v1-x

The substituting Dr. Ivanovs energy velocity term Ve into the Lorentz Transformations for relativistic energy,

e=m0/(1-Ve^2/c^2), we get

e=m0/1-(x^2)/(2v_1-x)^2, where x is the frequency gradient between oscillator v1 and v2.

Now if 2v_1=x, the e=infinity, according to the equation.

However, for two oscillators this would require v1 to have a frequency of say 3 htz, and oscillator v2 to have a frequency of negative 3 htz. So for e to equal infinity, the oscillator v2 would have to have a negative frequency.

However, with three oscillators, I have found that, if my equation substitutions were correct, e can equal infinity, while all oscillators have a positive frequency.

The equation is as follows.

e=frac{m0}{ frac{sqrt(1-frac{c_0x_0}{2L_1-x_0}-c_1x_1L_1+frac{(c_1x_1)^2}{2}+x_1}{ frac{c_0x_0}{2L_1-x_0}-c_1x_1L_1+frac{(c_1x_1)^2}{2}+x_1}

if 2L=x_1, then e=infinity

If L1 has a frequency of 3htz, L2 has a frequency of 7Htz and L3 has a frequency of 1 Htz, and the lively standing wave has mass m_0, then e=infinity.

What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen