Theory of Magnetic Fields of Electrons and Protons

[what_are_electrons]

PART 1. Magnetic Field of Electron

The electron and the proton both have Magnetic Moments. By definition (Penguin Dict. of Physics, 1991) the term Magnetic Moment means:

1. SYMBOL, m,: "A property possessed by a permanent magnet or current-carrying coil, used as a measure of the magnetic strength"
2. OF A PARTICLE. SYMBOL: mu : "A property of a particle arising from its spin... The electron magnetic moment..."

In various other texts, we learn and can measure that electrons in motion (an electric current) produce a magnetic field in addition to their electric field (in effect an electromagnetic field). For all intents and purposes this is true based on what is known about (a) currents of electrons in wires or devices, (b) electrons orbiting atoms and (c) electrons in flight in evacuated instruments.

Doesn't this mean that the electron, by itself, has a magnetic field?
Ignoring sub-atomic particles, doesn't this mean that the electron represents the smallest magnet?
Why don't the texts say that the electron has a magnetic field with North and South poles?

If an electron could be stopped dead in its tracks (within our framework), truly "at rest" would it have a magnetic field?
Doesn't the electron have a "permanent" magnetic field even if it is not moving? Or better stated: A permanent "electromagnetic" field?

No matter whether or not the electron has a permanent magnetic field at rest, it clearly has a magnetic field because it is always moving and a moving charge has a magnetic field.


PART 2. Interaction of the Magnetic Fields of the Electron with the Proton (or electrons with protons)

In the same manner, the proton also has a natural and permanent (electro)magnetic field since it has a Magnetic Moment.
Ignoring the measured magnetic moment ratio of the electron and the proton, are the Structures and Shapes of these two (electro)magnetic fields the same or different?

If, at a first pass, we assume that the magnetic fields of the electrons and the proton are, in effect, the SAME in structure and shape, and if we consider the hydrogen atom, and momentarily ignore the electric fields, then we can think about what these two magnetic fields are doing to each other. In this setup we must keep in mind the fact that the electron and the proton are in continuous motion, both on their own axes and around each other.

IF the two rotations of the magnetic fields are NOT aligned, then the two magnetic fields will oscillate between attraction and repulsion, which causes the attached electric fields to produce vacuum or space polarization within the sphere of the atom.

Since vacuum or space polarization seems to be reality, we can imagine that the "magnetic fields" of the electrons and the protons in all atoms are the cause of the local space or vacuum polarization around the atom.

This same interaction, magnetic field based attaction and repulsion between the electron and the proton, is most probably a "major reason / factor" in why the orbit of the electron does not decay.

Neutrons, with their magnetic fields, also play a role in this balancing act, but only when they are present which is in 99% of all the other elements. First things first. Neutrons later...

 

[Integral]

Doesn't this mean that the electron, by itself, has a magnetic field?

From the evidence you have posted... No it does not. In electro-magnetism a magnetic field is associated with a moving electric field.. so a moving electron generating a magnetic field does not imply that the electron itself has a magnetic field.

 

[quantumdude]

But he's asking if the electron has a magnetic field even if it stops moving, and the answer is "yes". Its intrinsic magnetic moment is due to both its charge and its intrinsic spin. But we know that intrinsic spin does not correspond to any real "spinning".

 

[Integral]

That is why I specified "from the evidence he presented".

 

[pervect]

PART 1. Magnetic Field of Electron

The electron and the proton both have Magnetic Moments.
<snip>
Doesn't this mean that the electron, by itself, has a magnetic field?

Yes, it does. However, the effect of the magnetic field on the orbital of the electron is small. Combined with the very small nuclear magnetic field, it leads to some of the fine and hyperfine splitting of energy levels in hydrogen. The magnetic moment of the electron is certainly not responsible for the stability of orbitals in standard theory. As far as stuff you want to make up as you go along, the sky's the limit :-)

Standard theory fine, hyperfine, and lamb shift splitting is discussed in, for instance

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~rt19/hydro/node9.html

 

[what_are_electrons]

Tom. Thanks for the confirmation.

Yes, it does. However, the effect of the magnetic field on the orbital of the electron is small. Combined with the very small nuclear magnetic field, it leads to some of the fine and hyperfine splitting of energy levels in hydrogen. The magnetic moment of the electron is certainly not responsible for the stability of orbitals in standard theory. As far as stuff you want to make up as you go along, the sky's the limit :-)

Standard theory fine, hyperfine, and lamb shift splitting is discussed in, for instance

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~rt19/hydro/node9.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1998 Codata data tables report that the "electron/proton magnetic moment ratio is equal to -658.2" which hardly seems to be a small number. In point of fact the electron is giving the proton a whoppin! So, let me be contradictory and say that the magnetic interactions, though normally ignored, are not trivial and can quite readily dominate the mechanism for stabilizing the atom.

There is one item that puzzles me. When I multiply the electron-neutron magnetic moment ratio times the neutron-proton moment ratio I get the number: -712.8. There is factor of 1.083... I am missing somewhere.
What have I missed?
...

 

[pervect]

Tom. Thanks for the confirmation.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1998 Codata data tables report that the "electron/proton magnetic moment ratio is equal to -658.2" which hardly seems to be a small number.

You're not so much wrong as irrelevant here

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

A) The electron magnetic moment is 928 e-26 Joules/Tesla
B) The proton magnetic moment is 1.41e-26 Joules/Tesla

C) But the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom is -13.6 electron volts = 2.17e-18 joules.

A may look big when compared to B, but so what? If you compare A to C, you see that A is a very minor effect. (To compare the two, you do need to know the value of the magnetic field in the atom. All we need to say here is it's much much much less than 10^5 Tesla, which is what would be required to make A equal to C, since the energy stored in a manetic dipole is u dot B.) For reference, the Earth's magnetic field is about .0005 Tesla.

To may things very, very, very, very simple:

A flea may be a lot heavier than a microbe. But no matter how many thousands of times a flea is larger than a microbe, it still won't outweigh an elephant.

As I mentioned previously, the magnetic field in the atom causes fine and hyperfine level splitting, not any major effects. For more details, read the URL in my previous post.

 

[Chronos]

Very simple question and a very simple answer. An electron cannot 'stand still'. Try doing the Maxwell equation with a stationary electron. [hint, add boundary conditions].

 

[what_are_electrons]

You're not so much wrong as irrelevant here

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

A) The electron magnetic moment is 928 e-26 Joules/Tesla
B) The proton magnetic moment is 1.41e-26 Joules/Tesla

C) But the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom is -13.6 electron volts = 2.17e-18 joules.

A may look big when compared to B, but so what? If you compare A to C, you see that A is a very minor effect. (To compare the two, you do need to know the value of the magnetic field in the atom. All we need to say here is it's much much much less than 10^5 Tesla, which is what would be required to make A equal to C, since the energy stored in a manetic dipole is u dot B.) For reference, the Earth's magnetic field is about .0005 Tesla.

To may things very, very, very, very simple:

A flea may be a lot heavier than a microbe. But no matter how many thousands of times a flea is larger than a microbe, it still won't outweigh an elephant.

As I mentioned previously, the magnetic field in the atom causes fine and hyperfine level splitting, not any major effects. For more details, read the URL in my previous post.

Question: Hmmm, How can I be irrelevant when I am the author of this thread? I secede that I can become irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, but if I am truly irrelevant, as noted, then I might decide to leave the human race altogether. Let me ponder that one.


Back to the matter at hand:
The values you quote for magnetic moment are not in the right units for comparison to the BE of the hydrogen atom. After converting to base MKS units, the BE for the Hydrogen electron is: 2.17e-18 kg m/s(2).

For the proton the magnetic moment is: 28.22e-34 kg m/s(2).
For the electron the magnetic moment is: 18.54e-31 kg m/s(2)

This means that the difference you noted is even larger when the units are adjusted accordingly.

The "Energy" (and I use that term loosely just now)
that holds the electron close to the proton in a single hydrogen atom is defined to be the binding energy (BE) of the 1s electron (ie -13.6 eV or in base MKS units -2.17e-18 kg m/s(2)). This is the value you called "the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom".

The questions are: What does this binding energy value represent?
1. Does it represent the +charge -charge attraction ONLY? No, it does not.
2. Does it represent the energy needed to pull the electron away from physically touching the core? No, it does not or we'd all not be here.
3. Does it represent the energy needed to overcome the angular moment of the electron? Yes, that is part of it.
4. What is left? Since the proton has a magnetic moment and since the electron has a magnetic moment and since magnetic moment is, in effect, just another word for the presence of a magnetic field, we might conclude that there should be some level of interaction between the two magnetic fields.
5. Is it possible that there are other forces at work? Yes, but I don't know of any other forces except those that are either way too strong (gluon type) or way too weak (gravity). And yes, there may be other forces at work that we have not yet realized or observed. This may be the real cause of the binding energy, but we should focus on the known forces that may be responsible for this level of binding energy.

For the moment, let's assume that the magnetic fields do indeed play a major role in keeping the electron in orbit around the proton. Let's also assume that the electron and the proton are actually rotating on their axes, and that the electron and proton are in constant motion around each other as we normally assume. If we also assume that the "permanent" electric field of any particle is intimately connected to a "permanent" magnetic field, then we expect that any movement of the magnetic field would cause the electric field to also move. If the speed of the central rotational axes of the two particles are not 100% matched, as is expected (ie slippage occurs), then we can imagine that the orientations of the N-S magnetic poles are in a constant state of flux between various states that produce physical attraction and physical repulsion. This sort of oscillation between the magnetic poles forces the electric charges, that they are intimately connect to, to also oscillate in space. This sort of oscillation could be the actual source of the vacuum or space polarization around the atom. Since we theorize that vacuum polarization exists, we might conclude that vacuum polarization supports the idea that magnetic fields are a major factor in the stability of any atom.

Your turn.


Side note:
When I convert the negative electric charge on the electron into base MKS units I get -12.82e-2 kg(2)/m(2)s(3). The positive electric charge on the proton must then be +12.82e-2 kg(2)/m(2)s(3) base MKS units. It is clear from our knowledge that a negative is attracted to a positive and vice versa, but what are those units? As I look at the base MKS units, I want to convert the kg(2)/m(2)s(3) units into (1 / s) x (kg / m s)(2), but I can not guess the name of the squared unit that is composed of: kg / m s
Suggestions?

 

[what_are_electrons]

After the move, there are no more challenges, so it seems that my Theory is well founded.

 

[north]

just curious, Sun spots ,why is there blackness at their point?

 

[Tide]

Sunspots are not black. They are less bright than the surrounding surface and only appear black in order to get the proper exposure of the full surface when taking photographs.

The magnetic field inside a sunspot is much greater than the ambient magnetic field and as the sunspot is forming it drags plasma in from the surrounding volume. The plasma immediately surrounding the sunspot is cooled by the expansion (but the interior gets hotter) and what you see is the surrounding plasma.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Good points!, as in fact your point of view about the magnetic field coincides with my proposal, where we recover that non conservative aspect of a magnetic field which means in a certain sense that the magnetic field is a self-consistent entity as is expressed in Maxwell equation, regarding the non existence of magnetic isolated poles.
The main problem with this is that modern physics decided to take the route of the part, not the whole/part route, taking the electric charge concept as the starting point of view, declaring the magnetic field as a relativistic concept, which does not agree with the certitude of that inherent magnetic field of the electron. Is not this the reason why modern physics has been built with so many patches since then? Is not even the concept of field another "patch" as is used by them today?
Another point is that if we represent the magnetic field by the complex concept I have introduced in my papers, it wil appear naturally as sort of "inherent oscillator", giving reason in this way of its inherent energy, that some ones are now calling zero-point-energy, that can be associated with its intrinsic spinning which is a result of the inherent oscillation of the electron system, not precisely the spinning of a particle around a point.

Regards
EP

Question: Hmmm, How can I be irrelevant when I am the author of this thread? I secede that I can become irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, but if I am truly irrelevant, as noted, then I might decide to leave the human race altogether. Let me ponder that one.


Back to the matter at hand:
The questions are: What does this binding energy value represent?
1. Does it represent the +charge -charge attraction ONLY? No, it does not.
2. Does it represent the energy needed to pull the electron away from physically touching the core? No, it does not or we'd all not be here.
3. Does it represent the energy needed to overcome the angular moment of the electron? Yes, that is part of it.
4. What is left? Since the proton has a magnetic moment and since the electron has a magnetic moment and since magnetic moment is, in effect, just another word for the presence of a magnetic field, we might conclude that there should be some level of interaction between the two magnetic fields.
5. Is it possible that there are other forces at work? Yes, but I don't know of any other forces except those that are either way too strong (gluon type) or way too weak (gravity). And yes, there may be other forces at work that we have not yet realized or observed. This may be the real cause of the binding energy, but we should focus on the known forces that may be responsible for this level of binding energy.

For the moment, let's assume that the magnetic fields do indeed play a major role in keeping the electron in orbit around the proton. Let's also assume that the electron and the proton are actually rotating on their axes, and that the electron and proton are in constant motion around each other as we normally assume. If we also assume that the "permanent" electric field of any particle is intimately connected to a "permanent" magnetic field, then we expect that any movement of the magnetic field would cause the electric field to also move. If the speed of the central rotational axes of the two particles are not 100% matched, as is expected (ie slippage occurs), then we can imagine that the orientations of the N-S magnetic poles are in a constant state of flux between various states that produce physical attraction and physical repulsion. This sort of oscillation between the magnetic poles forces the electric charges, that they are intimately connect to, to also oscillate in space. This sort of oscillation could be the actual source of the vacuum or space polarization around the atom. Since we theorize that vacuum polarization exists, we might conclude that vacuum polarization supports the idea that magnetic fields are a major factor in the stability of any atom.

 

[Locrian]

After the move, there are no more challenges, so it seems that my Theory is well founded.

You seem confused as to what makes a theory well founded.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Paraphrasing Lord Kelvin we can say that:
"I often say that when you... express what you are speaking about mathematically...you know something about it; but when you cannot... your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be."
And what_ what_are_electrons proposes can be expressed mathematically in one of the Maxwell's equations. The point is that this is a different point of view of that taken by modern physics.
Regards
EP

You seem confused as to what makes a theory well founded.

 

[Antonio Lao]

A more general title for this thread can be suggested as follows:

Theory of magnetic fields of fermions (specifically, leptons and baryons).

Electrons are the lightest charged leptons. Protons are the lightest charged baryons.
Other facts:
Electrons are experimentally stable point-particles with no substructures. Protons are composite particles of quarks (3-quark configuration). Yet it is now accepted that protons are stable with lifetime in excess of 10^33 years and quarks can never be isolated at low energy domain, while at high energy, quarks are asymptotically free.

Somehow it can be theorized that there is a direct correlation between magnetic field strength and mass and increasing internal magnetic field intensity seems to indicate heavier mass.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

introducing "patches" in modern physics?

Antonio,

The title you put the thread depends on the framework you are using. If we take the electron as a fundamental energetic entity with no substructures and with an inherent magnetic field with its well-known spin property the title is ok; on the contrary, even the concept of a magnetic field will certainly become another "patch" in yours constructs.
Why insisting in explaining the whole by the part? Why don't we start with a whole/part entity such as the electron(no substructures), and its inherent magnetic field? In this way for sure we will not have so many patches in modern physics.

Regards
EP

A more general title for this thread can be suggested as follows:

Theory of magnetic fields of fermions (specifically, leptons and baryons).

Electrons are the lightest charged leptons. Protons are the lightest charged baryons.
Other facts:
Electrons are experimentally stable point-particles with no substructures. Protons are composite particles of quarks (3-quark configuration). Yet it is now accepted that protons are stable with lifetime in excess of 10^33 years and quarks can never be isolated at low energy domain, while at high energy, quarks are asymptotically free.

Somehow it can be theorized that there is a direct correlation between magnetic field strength and mass and increasing internal magnetic field intensity seems to indicate heavier mass.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Epsilon Pi,

The Millikan's oil drop experiment sets the quantum of charge. But this setup was done by balancing the electric force against gravity.

Until now there is no experiment that determine the quantum of mass. My suggestion is that an experiment can be setup by balancing the magnetic force with the electric force or with gravity to find the quantum of mass.

My hunch is that this quantum of mass might turn out to be the Planck mass.

For leptons, I think, there is a correlation between magnetic moments and mass. If this is true then all the neutrinos have mass since they all possesses magnetic moments.

For photons, since it has no magnetic moment, its mass is zero. But both W+ and W- and Z0 have mass. So for bosons or hadrons (quarks composites), the correlattion between magnetic moment and mass does not hold or could be just more complicated.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Antonio,
We certainly have the quantum of charge as an invariant in the universe, but does not it mean that it is related with a quantum of a magnetic field?
As a matter of fact "mass" is not an invariant as it changes with velocity, and it seems after all a derived concept, not a fundamental one.

Is not mass sort of a frozen energy?

Is not energy the real fundamental entity associated in fact with Plank's constant, as with the wave-nature established by Davisson and Germer as well?

Are you not putting too much the accent in a concept such as the particle concept that is but an abstraction in the QM world?

Regards
EP

Epsilon Pi,

The Millikan's oil drop experiment sets the quantum of charge. But this setup was done by balancing the electric force against gravity.

Until now there is no experiment that determine the quantum of mass. My suggestion is that an experiment can be setup by balancing the magnetic force with the electric force or with gravity to find the quantum of mass.

My hunch is that this quantum of mass might turn out to be the Planck mass.

For leptons, I think, there is a correlation between magnetic moments and mass. If this is true then all the neutrinos have mass since they all possesses magnetic moments.

For photons, since it has no magnetic moment, its mass is zero. But both W+ and W- and Z0 have mass. So for bosons or hadrons (quarks composites), the correlattion between magnetic moment and mass does not hold or could be just more complicated.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The magnetic force is given by

F_B= q\vec{v} \times \vec{B}

The inertial force is given by

F_i=ma

(instead of using the gravitational force)

when these forces are equal, mass is proportional to the magnetic field by

m= \frac{v}{\kappa\mu} B

where the proportionality constant is a ratio of speed over the product of charge-to-mass ratio with the product of magnetic field and a quantum of length.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, thank you, Antonio, which is precisely my point regarding the magnetic field as the fundamental one.
It is right to assume the equality between gravitational and inertial mass; it was Einstein who used this equality in his general relativity.
Regards
EP

The magnetic force is given by

F_B= q\vec{v} \times \vec{B}

The inertial force is given by

F_i=ma

(instead of using the gravitational force)

when these forces are equal, mass is proportional to the magnetic field by

m= \frac{v}{\kappa\mu} B

where the proportionality constant is a ratio of speed over the product of charge-to-mass ratio with the product of magnetic field and a quantum of length.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Epsilon Pi,

After some thoughts, I think the quantum of the magnetic field is a current loop. The current is derived from the motion of space charges. Space charges is different fundamentally from color charges or weak charges or electric charges. And since time is linked to this current loop, the magnetic quantum is the same as quantization of spacetime. When two loops are linked together, they formed two distinct structures for a square of energy, H+ and H-. One can be the south pole and the other can be the north pole of the magnetic field. But everything in nature is composed of some number of H+ and some of H-. Therefore it is impossible to isolate just one H+ or one H- (the key reason why magnetic monopole can never be found). For fermions, there are odd number of H+ and odd number of H-. For bosons, there are even number of H+ and even number of H-. I already described extensively other properties of H+ and H- in many other threads of this forum.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thank you, Antonio, again you give the opportunity to clarify my own point of view.
The point of view you are expressing is precisely that one prevailing in modern physics that tries to explain the whole by the part, i.e., the magnetic field a self-consistent entity with an inherent structure or polarity, by the charge, whatever it may be.

The electron has an inherent magnetic field that can give reason in a most natural way of its spin behavior because of that inherent polarity; please note that this behavior exists even at rest,no electric charge moving, no current loop.

If we use complex numbers in all its full power we can express mathematically that duality you are trying to explain by introducing another concept, space charge, and even we can see why at those levels of the electron behavior time and space are decoupled, as is expressed in the Schrodinger wave equation. On the other hand we can express with them too why there can be no magnetic monopoles.

My main concern since 1968, was not precisely to find a TOE, but to find a mathematical methodology to include the fundamental equations of physics, and this can be done with the basic unit system concept introduced in my papers, being the most relevant thing about it that we do not need to introduce additional strange physical concepts; this seems to me untenable as an engineer, and that claim I've heard so many times about why in modern physics they use such a different language as that one we use in our daily engineering applications, is finally solved.

Regards
EP

Epsilon Pi,

After some thoughts, I think the quantum of the magnetic field is a current loop. The current is derived from the motion of space charges. Space charges is different fundamentally from color charges or weak charges or electric charges. And since time is linked to this current loop, the magnetic quantum is the same as quantization of spacetime. When two loops are linked together, they formed two distinct structures for a square of energy, H+ and H-. One can be the south pole and the other can be the north pole of the magnetic field. But everything in nature is composed of some number of H+ and some of H-. Therefore it is impossible to isolate just one H+ or one H- (the key reason why magnetic monopole can never be found). For fermions, there are odd number of H+ and odd number of H-. For bosons, there are even number of H+ and even number of H-. I already described extensively other properties of H+ and H- in many other threads of this forum.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Epsilon Pi,

The space charge are truly zero dimensional point object of spacetime. It will take 8 space charges to form a 3D detectable object like an electron. The reason why there have to be 8 is because there are precisely also 8 directional properties for all 3D objects. If there are less than 8, then the object cannot be 3D.

All neutrinos are composed of only 1 H+ and 1 H-, total 2 space charges, less than 8 required to be 3D.

The up quark is made of 5 H+ and 1 H- total 6 space charges again less than 8.
The down quark is made of 1 H+ and 3 H- total 4 space charges less than 8.

The electron is made of 7H- and 1 H+ exactly 8. The photon is made of 4H+ 4H- exactly 8. The proton is composed of 2 ups and 1 down total 16 space charges are more than 8. The neutron is made of 2 downs and 1 up quarks total 14 space charges more than 8.

Note there are higher levels of existence for H+ and H- that can account for the disparity in mass. The 8 directional properties match the 8 gluons of particle physics.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Epsilon Pi,

The space charge are truly zero dimensional point object of spacetime.

Humm...truly zero dimensional point object? how can it be an object of spacetime if it has no dimension? It is beautiful construct, but do we really need it?
Can you express it mathematically?
Does it mean that we have a metaphysical non space time background?

[/QUOTE]

It will take 8 space charges to form a 3D detectable object like an electron. The reason why there have to be 8 is because there are precisely also 8 directional properties for all 3D objects. If there are less than 8, then the object cannot be 3D.

Quite interesting! I'll think a little bit more about it.
Like an octave?

Regards
EP

 

[Antonio Lao]

Can you expresses it mathematically?

The space charges H+ and H- can be expressed in two ways: by matrices or vector products.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Like an octave?

I guess so. Now, it seems to indicate that even musical harmony requires 8 directional invariant properties of spacetime.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The square of energy can be defined by

E^2=\vec{F_B} \times \vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{F_E} \times \vec{r_E}

when expanded by Lagrange's identity

H^{-} = \left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right) - \left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right)<br />

H^{+} =\left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right) - \left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right) <br />

\left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right)
is identically zero if the forces are orthogonal. If this expression does not vanish then its ratio over square of energy can be defined as the coupling constants of the four fundamental forces of nature, and for EM

\alpha=\frac{\left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right)}{\left(\vec{F_B} \cdot \vec{r_E}\right) \left(\vec{r_B} \cdot \vec{F_E}\right)}=\frac{1}{137}

 

[Antonio Lao]

By 2-order square matrix notations

H^{+} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}+1 &amp; -1\\-1 &amp; +1 \end{array}\right)

H^{-} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}-1 &amp; +1\\+1 &amp; -1 \end{array}\right)

Note that the elements of these matrices are the square of pure imaginary number, i.

1 = - i^2

-1 = i^2

and the powers of i show the cyclic permutations of 1, i, -1, -i

i^0 = 1, i^1=i, i^2=-1, i^3=-i, i^4=1, i^5=i, i^6=-1, i^7=-i, i^8=1

 

[krab]

I guess so. Now, it seems to indicate that even musical harmony requires 8 directional invariant properties of spacetime.

Our word octave in reference to music is an artefact of a medieval counting technique, where zeroes were avoided. If we invented the same 12 semi-tone system, we would call the white keys a septet, since 'octave' double-counts the home key. That may sound garbled, but consider that if one octave is 8 keys, 2 octaves is 15 and 3 is 22, etc. The real magic number in music is 12, not 8, or even 7.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The real magic number in music is 12, not 8, or even 7.

The pure imaginary number i to the powers of 0, 4, 8, and 12 all equal to one. Can this cyclic permutation mean anything as far as magic number goes?

 

[krab]

The pure imaginary number i to the powers of 0, 4, 8, and 12 all equal to one. Can this cyclic permutation mean anything as far as magic number goes?

In music, the 12 comes about because 3^12 is very nearly equal to 2^19. Hence, the "circle of fifths" (each "fifth" represents multiplication by 3/2) closes on itself after 12 notes.
It has nothing to do with imaginary numbers.

 

[Antonio Lao]

krab,

Thanks for your clarifications.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, Antonio, complex numbers are fundamental for expressing the laws of nature, and this sense I thought you might be interested in a paper I wrote some time ago

Is the basic unit system a string?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0010/0010073.pdf

In it the complex basic unit system concept based on Euler relation is presented and it is noted there how that concept behaves as string, that is exactly what you have being presenting in this thread, Antonio, haven't you?
I would appreciate any comments from you and thank you
Regards
EP

By 2-order square matrix notations

H^{+} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}+1 &amp; -1\\-1 &amp; +1 \end{array}\right)

H^{-} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}-1 &amp; +1\\+1 &amp; -1 \end{array}\right)

Note that the elements of these matrices are the square of pure imaginary number, i.

1 = - i^2

-1 = i^2

and the powers of i show the cyclic permutations of 1, i, -1, -i

i^0 = 1, i^1=i, i^2=-1, i^3=-i, i^4=1, i^5=i, i^6=-1, i^7=-i, i^8=1

 

[Antonio Lao]

Is the basic unit system a string?

Read your paper. Thanks. Will read the other papers at xxx.lanl.gov site.

In it the complex basic unit system concept based on Euler relation is presented and it is noted there how that concept behaves as string, that is exactly what you have being presenting in this thread, Antonio, haven't you?

The H+ and H- formed an algebra of a mathematical field which is a commutative ring of a semigroup under multiplication with no unity nor inverse and an Abelian group under addition with a unity and inverse.
The multiplicative group is used to find the different mass values of both fermions and bosons.
The additive group is used to find the different charge values of both fermions and bosons.
The topological geometric structure of H+ and H- is that of a closed loop of 1D string. But it will take two loops to form an H(+/-) structure. This structure can be said to be isomorphic to a doubly twisted Moebius strip or Hopf ring.

The intermediate level of reality you mentioned I would call it a fractal reality of fractal dimension (fractional dimension) between complete chaos and complete order. The midpoint reality is a theory of complexity (a complex adaptive system). These formed a trinity of physical states of energy (chaos), matter (complex adaptive system) and space (order).

Energy is intrinsically 3D, matter is intrinsically 4D, space can be subdivided into 2D and 1D. The 2D space is called continuous space, the 1D space is called quantized space of closed loops of string. The physical reality of 0D is the spacetime continuum.

Furthermore, the fractal force between 4D and 3D could be the EM force or the weak force, between 3D and 1D could still be the EM force or weak force, between 2D and 1D can be the strong force, and between 1D and 0D is the gravitational force.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Read your paper. Thanks. Will read the other papers at xxx.lanl.gov site.

The topological geometric structure of H+ and H- is that of a closed loop of 1D string. But it will take two loops to form an H(+/-) structure. This structure can be said to be isomorphic to a doubly twisted Moebius strip or Hopf ring.

We certainly are using almost the same concepts, but the difference is, that I use to represent them, the complex basic unit system concept, that permits us to think in terms of closed loops or strings naturally, and even in terms of a radical duality, a necessary requisite when coping reality at those QM levels.
Another important advantage of this concept is that we can put under it all the fundamental equations of physics. i.e., under the same symbolic mathematical representation.

The intermediate level of reality you mentioned I would call it a fractal reality of fractal dimension (fractional dimension) between complete chaos and complete order. The midpoint reality is a theory of complexity (a complex adaptive system). These formed a trinity of physical states of energy (chaos), matter (complex adaptive system) and space (order).

Here again we agree to a certain extent, being the difference again a sound symbolic complex mathematical representation as the BUS.
The intermediate level of reality in fact has a mathematical representation in the complex plane, that I have found quite akin to the concept of form that biologists are using when dealing with life, as life can be defined as an animated form.
When dealing with open dynamic systems, before acquiring the steady state or its resonant state, we certainly have many frequencies, or a chaos of frequencies, but once that state is reached we have the inherent resonant frequency, or order. It is not quite correct to say that chaos is the origin of that order from this point of view.
And yes there you have the need of a triadic symbolism that can be expressed mathematically by complex numbers or the BUS concept.

And thank you so much for your time!

Regards
EP

 

[Antonio Lao]

Thanks, Epsilon Pi. I learned some from you. My next project is to show how and when that the product of two quantities, say, a and b is equal to the postive difference such that

ab=b-a

when b > a.

 

[what_are_electrons]

Thanks, Epsilon Pi. I learned some from you. My next project is to show how and when that the product of two quantities, say, a and b is equal to the postive difference such that

ab=b-a

when b > a.

Hello EP and Antonio,
Many thanks for your ongoing discussion in a thread I thought dead. I would like to know the use of the above equation. Thanks!

 

[Antonio Lao]

The use of the equation is to remove infinities from physical equations involving quantities that either approaches zero or infinity. It is a renormalization principle given by the following

1=\frac{b-a}{ab}

Please see more in the thread "what if time does not exst?"

 

[PRyckman]

chroot, your an ******* stop locking the ****ing forums

 

[juju]

Y'all seem to be interested in unified field theory other than ST and LQG.

I might suggest you check out the work of the follkowing:

Mendel Sachs

Myron Evans

David Maker

juju

 

[Antonio Lao]

Making a theoretical prediction, there is an underlying relation between all the neutrinos and magnetic monopoles.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thanks, juju, but more than a unified field theory what we need as scientists and philosophers, is a unified mathematical framework more akin with other fields of science and mainstream philosophy, such as that work of the Frenchman Edgar Morin and his Complex Thinking, and perhaps the "holonic" work of the north american philosopher Ken Wilber, or else we will have a physics, not only with an inherent schism but separated in two great areas:

- that of modern physics, in its own cocoon, and always hoping to find a TOE, with which to explain everything

- and those all areas where engineering applications of all kinds are at hand and on which all our civilization rests.

Reductionism and dualism are certainly untenable in human sciences, and as so our physics should not intend to build a language with not so many patches? A language where that radical duality of the universe is rationalized -not reduced- which is even reflected in our those two brains of the right and left hemispheres: the latter of the logical, semantic and phonetic representation of reality and the former highly specialized in the, as it were, "holonic" grasping of complex relationships, patterns, structure and configurations?

Regards
EP

Y'all seem to be interested in unified field theory other than ST and LQG.

I might suggest you check out the work of the follkowing:

Mendel Sachs

Myron Evans

David Maker

juju

 

[Antonio Lao]

More theoretical predictions, if the electric charge can be further fractionalized then the charge of a magnetic north monopole should have the value of +1/6 and the charge of a magnetic south monopole should have the value of -1/6 of that of the electronic charge. So that the electron is made up of 7 south monopoles and 1 north monopole giving a net electric charge of -1.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hi Antonio and everyone interested,

Did you know that the Urantia Book says that, in fact, the electron can be fractionalized in 100 ultimatons, or else, 50 and 50 ultimatons? According to that UB an ultimaton is the first form of measurable energy, so I was just thinking how can that information be conciliated with yours?
As a matter of fact an ultimaton is not affected by linear gravity according to UB, being linear gravity the one we know as gravity... so it behaves as an entity that can transcend those laws of time and space as we know them.

Regards
EP

More theoretical predictions, if the electric charge can be further fractionalized then the charge of a magnetic north monopole should have the value of +1/6 and the charge of a magnetic south monopole should have the value of -1/6 of that of the electronic charge. So that the electron is made up of 7 south monopoles and 1 north monopole giving a net electric charge of -1.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Epsilon Pi,

The magnetic monopoles (H+ and H-) are quantization of spacetime (1D of space and 1D of time). When we add up H's, we get the value of charge. When we multiply H's, we get the value of mass. I am still reading your revised paper on "The Principle of Synergy and Isomorphic Units" as archived in xxx.lanl.gov. I can say that your idea about the concept of complex number is my idea about the directional property of a number. So a complex number is an Abelian group in addition of a scalar quantity and a directional quantity. This directional quantity is an imaginary number. The scalar part is inherently "oneness" and the directional part is intrinsically dual, it is the product of a scalar and a 1D direction (a unit vector or basis).

The square root of negative one is a way of establishing the orthogonality of the real axis and the imaginary axis. This orthogonality validate the Pythagorean theorem for one dimension of spacetime and even for higher dimensions. Without the existence of right triangles, sine and cosine functions are meaningless since they are defined as the ratio of sides of right triangles as described in trigonometry.

The principle of orthogonality is very powerful as it is the basis of forming physically covariant theories.

In differential geometry, the time derivative of the tangent vector is always orthogonal to the tangent vector. With this orthogonality, the motion of a point can be defined in 1D as well as in higher dimensions.

 

[juju]

Hi EP,

If I remember correctly, the work of the three persons I mentioned, is directed toward a derivation of everything from general relativity.

I have tracked down some web sites if you are interested.

http://www.americanantigravity.com/davidmaker.shtml

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/

http://www.aias.us/

thanx

juju

 

[Antonio Lao]

As a matter of fact an ultimaton is not affected by linear gravity according to UB, being linear gravity the one we know as gravity... so it behaves as an entity that can transcend those laws of time and space as we know them.

The force of a linear (1D) gravity is constant. The force of a surface (2D) gravity is inversely proportional to the distance. The force of a volume (3D) gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, when multiply by square of mass (dual property of mass), this is Newton's law of universal gravitation. The force of a 4D gravity is the curvature of spacetime and directly proportional to the energy-momentum tensor of general relativity.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Epsilon Pi,

The magnetic monopoles (H+ and H-) are quantization of spacetime (1D of space and 1D of time). When we add up H's, we get the value of charge. When we multiply H's, we get the value of mass.

There is one point I am thinking about, having in mind the basic unit system concept, which is a rotating system in the complex plane, where you have 1D for space if you want, and 1D for time.

The BUS concept has inherently a frequency when acquiring a steady state, I mean, when becoming a "mass", for example, as the BUS concept is in general a representation of the behavior of energy, a reason why we can find with it, the equations of energetic systems such as the pendulum, the electron and its SWE, the Lorentz transformation group, and those equations of gravitational fields.
If think of H+ and H- as being summed as in Euler Relation we can effectively have the magnetic field, as in fact with the BUS we can represent it, too, but is not clear to me how we obtain "mass", except by considering it a resonant state of energy at lower frequencies.

I am still reading your revised paper on "The Principle of Synergy and Isomorphic Units" as archived in xxx.lanl.gov. I can say that your idea about the concept of complex number is my idea about the directional property of a number. So a complex number is an Abelian group in addition of a scalar quantity and a directional quantity. This directional quantity is an imaginary number. The scalar part is inherently "oneness" and the directional part is intrinsically dual, it is the product of a scalar and a 1D direction (a unit vector or basis).

Yes a complex number has both a directional property and scalar property defined in its angle and its magnitude when represented in polar form, or in Euler relation. Oneness has to do with the fact that in that complex triadic unit I have the radical duality of time and space represented, and wholeness with the fact that with that same unit I can represent the behavior of different physical energetic entities, and openness with the fact that I have associated with it a field, or way to interchange energy with the environment.

The square root of negative one is a way of establishing the orthogonality of the real axis and the imaginary axis. This orthogonality validate the Pythagorean theorem for one dimension of spacetime and even for higher dimensions. Without the existence of right triangles, sine and cosine functions are meaningless since they are defined as the ratio of sides of right triangles as described in trigonometry.

Yes it is, but additionally the square root of negative one, is a symbol for differentiating two different orders of reality or the radical duality of time and space.

The principle of orthogonality is very powerful as it is the basis of forming physically covariant theories.

In differential geometry, the time derivative of the tangent vector is always orthogonal to the tangent vector. With this orthogonality, the motion of a point can be defined in 1D as well as in higher dimensions.

And with that principle of orthogonality what we obtain when having Euler relation in mind is precisely the complex plane, sort of canvas where we can represent energy and its behavior by establishing a complex dynamic differential geometry, whose main object is not necessarily to make, as it were, geometric representation but to obtain the state of an energetic system, with two main state variables, that of time and that of space.

Thank you so much again for your time!
Best regards
EP

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thank you, juju, but that was precisely my point, as with general relativity time is reduced to a space dimension.
Regards
EP

Hi EP,

If I remember correctly, the work of the three persons I mentioned, is directed toward a derivation of everything from general relativity.

I have tracked down some web sites if you are interested.

http://www.americanantigravity.com/davidmaker.shtml

http://www.compukol.com/mendel/

http://www.aias.us/

thanx

juju