An investigation into Planck Particles

[origin]

By all means, go away and work in peace.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

By all means, go away and work in peace.

Or you can just ignore this topic if you feel it doesn't fit your rank of "professional physics". Just something for you if you hate this topic so much.

 

[origin]

Or you can just ignore this topic if you feel it doesn't fit your rank of "professional physics". Just something for you if you hate this topic so much.

Nah, I'll stick around - I guess I am a bit of a masochist. Besides I couldn't do much to affect this train wreck one way or the other anyway.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Nah, I'll stick around - I guess I am a bit of a masochist. Besides I couldn't do much to affect this train wreck one way or the other anyway.

...Okay if you insist. You aren't going to get much out of it if hang on aboard. In my case, I am going to continue looking at the mathematics behind this. I still think it is quite interesting.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Origin you haven't replied to my post, 28.

I assume you are just a thick idiot who runs off his mouth with nothing to show.

Insulting doesn't prove anything really. If you are really confident in your findings, you should continue to work on them.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

I insult, because he is offending me and the integrity of my thread, without putting up!

Well if he insults you and he is wrong, then that just ruins his reputation. Why ruin your reputation by insulting back? As I said, if you feel confident in your findings keep working on them and something can become of it.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

So, you are saying that Planck's constant, or the quantum wavelength of the particle, is equal to the Gravitational constant multiplied by the particle mass squared divided by the speed of light?

If so, that means that the quantum wavelength is determined by the mass of the particle(which is quite obvious if correct), am I correct to say this?

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Plancks Constant is different to the wavelength, you get the wavelength when you divide $$Mc$$ by the constant. But yes, from the quantization condition

$$\hbar c = GM^2$$

it is easy to get the quantization of angular momentum, by dividing off $$c$$ on both sides

$$\hbar = \frac{GM^2}{c}$$

Motz makes a mention of this proceedure in his paper. The wavelength is however in a sense dependant on the gravitational charge because of this relationship, which I noted a few pages back:

$$\lambda = \frac{GM^2}{E}$$

This can be understood, because Planck Particles have a wavelength which is equal to the Schwarzschild radius through this relationship:

$$\hbar c = GM^2$$

divide through by $$Mc^2$$

$$\frac{\hbar c}{Mc^2} = \frac{GM^2}{Mc^2} \rightarrow \frac{\hbar}{Mc} = \frac{GM^2}{E}$$

where the right hand side is just $$\frac{GM}{c} = r_s$$ where $$r_s$$ is just the Schwartzschild radius.

So from the equation of GM/c = rs, you can determine the Schwartzschild radius by the particle mass, gravitational constant, and the speed of light. If correct, wouldn't this mean that the attraction between particles is determined by the mass, which is similar to the idea of general physics?

 

[origin]

Origin you haven't replied to my post, 28.

I assume you are just a thick idiot who runs off his mouth with nothing to show.

Hey that's awesome because I assume you are a moron. Now there's a goddamn coincidence!

I tried pointing out your errors in one of your previous incarnations - don't remember which one - but you just go round and round and change subjects and obfuscate - trying to discuss this stuff with you is a fools errand.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

Oh yes, all attraction in gravitational terms is a contribution of the mass of systems. $$GM$$ has a special name of it's own, called the gravitational parameter.

So, in this case couldn't that mean all particles of the Universe are interacting in some form no matter how small the interaction is? The interactions are just so small that they aren't detectable by human instruments or senses, even by the smallest value.

Hey that's awsome because I assume you are a moron. Now there's a goddamn coincodence!

I tried pointing out your errors in one of your previous incarnations - don't remember which one - but you just go round and round and change subjects and obfuscate - trying to discuss this stuff with you is a fools errand.

Man you are persistent, aren't you?

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

In theory, we are often told in Newtonian Gravitational Physics, that all masses in the universe have some influence on other masses. How close to the truth this is, is hard to tell.

So, couldn't that mean that the reason why quantum mechanics is so unpredictable is due to these interactions that occur? With Universal Expansion Theory, the Universe expands and more particles are spread out, causing more interactions between particles. In this case, this is the reason why particles are so hard to predict.

 

[RealityCheck]

Interesting discussion.

This brings to mind something I haven't seen mentioned in a long time....

If I recall correctly, I read some time ago that according to Einstein the gravity effect of bodies in close proximity is stronger than the sum of the gravity effect of the separate bodies far apart.

This indicates the question: If there was a stage when all energy/bodies in the universe were in very close proximity early on, what would be the 'calculated collective' gravity strength of all the universal contents have amounted to then......and how may it compare to the total strength now?

Obviously, if the Big Bang hypothesis is as currently described, the total gravity due to the extreme proximity of everything early on cannot have been strong enough to prevent 'inflation'. And also, the view that everything is now 'further apart would mean that the total gravity strength now is much less strong than that very early on.

Does anyone have any information/numbers on this aspect regarding greater proximity between bodies producing greater overall gravity effect than the individual gravity of isolated bodies simply 'added together'?

Any information on this will be greatly appreciated.

Gotta go. Back in a few days. Thanks in advance...and cheers!

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

The reason why we can't know everything is at the heart of the uncertainty principle.

It really isn't at the heart of the uncertainty principle. This principle simply states that quantum mechanics is merely a randomized system, with the fact that particle positions and trajectories can be predicted sometimes.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

It is at the heart of the uncertainty principle and is the reason why in the Copenhagen Interpretation, you cannot know everything in the universe.

That could be argued. If one were to determine more of the Expanding Universe Theory and determine how particles react within certain systems over a period of time, date can be collected to determine the correct results and from there develop an equation to determine the variables involved.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

and there... that is me. I have justified all the equations now.

Hopefully I can continue with my work in peace.

You completely ignored all of what I said. You either didn't understand or didn't read my explanation of how what you're doing lacks justification. I even gave an example of how messing with coefficients can even give seemingly correct results but the method is flawed and unjustified. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make you more justified, it makes you stupid.

...but I will tell you what I will justify all my equations again with even deeper insights. Will that satisfy you? Or will you continue to clutch on the straws stating that solving for particular constants is... unjustified lol

You clearly don't know what a proper derivation/justification involves.

Another interesting fact about moving charges in a topology is that it gives rise to a magnetic field as well.

That isn't even a coherent sentence. 'In a topology'? A topology is a property of something, not a thing in and of itself. You don't move in a topology, you move in a space-time which has a topology. It's slip ups like that which illustrate you don't know the stuff you're talking about. It's like someone who doesn't speak French trying to make coherent sentences by lifting out sections of sentences from the newspaper. Sure, some of it will be coherent but that doesn't mean you understand it, as well as the issue of having broken grammar and odd sentence constructions all over the place. Your 'moving in a topology' is such an example.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Again, I will ask you one last time... find something in my work which appears not be justified, and I will argue it is! Otherwise, you're full of hot air. I have asked you to do this three times now and you have not done it once! And the reason why your rearranging of equations was unjustified, was because that is what it was!!! lol

I already responded to this. Playing with coefficients is a dubious game at the best of times. The way to play with coefficients is to play with the equations they are coefficients in, typically differential equations such as the Einstein Field Equations or the Dirac Equation, and at the end, when all of the calculus stuff has been handled properly, then you see what coefficients you have. Since your repeating of your 'justification' had none of that my complaint standards. I gave an explicit example of how it's possible to play with coefficients and even arrive at a seemingly valid conclusion but the underlying models will still be wrong because you didn't deal with the models, just one aspect of them.

And it is a toroid topology I had in mind, by the way.

That doesn't do anything to negate my comment your sentence construction was grammatically incorrect, suggesting you don't know how to use the terminology properly. Furthermore, the topology of the underlying space-time is irrelevant to whether or not a moving charge generates a magnetic field. That follows from Maxwell's equations, regardless of underlying space-time.

I said type of topology, as you said, it could be spacetime which was the topology. In my case, the type of topology is the toroid geometry.

You said "Another interesting fact about moving charges in a topology is that it gives rise to a magnetic field as well.". I don't see 'type' in there anywhere. My comment stands. How about another?

The magnetic field from a topological toroid structure (Biot-Savat Law)

Now you're using topology in a different meaning to the one you used before. What you're referring to is a magnetic field due to a current flowing through a toroidal solenoid. How about another?

However, we now do an integral on the equation in respect of the length of the topological path gives

You mean just path. Putting 'topological' in front of it is at best redundant and at worst wrong. Yes, you're working with a system with a non-trivial topological structure but a path is a path in this case, topological paths refer to a different concept. A path through a system with non-trivial topology isn't called a topological path. Looks like a case of adding buzzwords to make things overly complicated.

And all of that is ignoring how your post doesn't lead anywhere. Plus the expressions you mess about with magically go from being position dependent to constant. You go from having something dependent on r to being dependent on the mean radius of curvature. You then mistakenly assert it is the hole in the middle of a torus. So you're just shuffling things around, making flawed simplifications and then your end 'result' isn't a result, it's like you stopped half way through. The question then becomes whether you're copying and pasting this from somewhere and you're not including essential steps from the source material or whether you're attempting to cobble together multiple sources which you don't realise aren't talking about precisely the same thing. Either way there's no merit in what you're doing. As usual Reiku.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You don't understand what you are talking about. Let me explain. Let's start with the magnetic thing. I said:

''The magnetic field from a topological toroid structure (Biot-Savat Law)''

You are saying that I am using a different topology from the one I referred to. This is wrong. I refer you to this paper:

http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

In this work, on the charge section, it clearly states toroidal topology. It uses the same model as I will be working with, I even said toroidal topology before you made this recent post. Clearly my use of the wording is not wrong, and certainly not wrong as you stated.

And we're back to my original point. You couldn't use 'topology' clearly and thus when I suggested a meaning, since the topology of a wire is rarely referred to as such because the wire itself is not actually a torus, you didn't disagree. This only proves my point that you don't know what you're talking about because you cannot use the terminology properly. The fact you've been lifting this from pdfs doesn't negate what I said or show I don't know what I'm talking about, it shows you cannot even parrot things properly!!

''You mean just path. Putting 'topological' in front of it is at best redundant and at worst wrong.''

Debatable. The topology of the the toroid structure is the path or the geometry that the object moves in. To me, it's all the same. A bit of quibble though. However, let's see...

And again you show you can't use 'topology' properly as a label. A path in a torus is a path. A path in a plane in a path. Both the plane and torus have particular topologies. Do you refer to normal paths as 'topological paths'? No, yet the space the path is embedded in will have a particular topology. A path moving through a torus will not inherit the topological structure of the torus. Yes, there are some paths in a torus you will not be able to construct for a plane but a single path is insufficient to correctly define the topology. Actually this goes into some very deep mathematics. Could you tell me it's name?

''A path through a system with non-trivial topology isn't called a topological path.''

Ok, maybe so. We would be dealing with electrons for an example, in a non-simply connected topology which would be embedded in a simply-connected space.

Oh look, you've been buzzword hunting. Farsight likes to wheel out that paper too. It isn't terribly convincing. But thanks for providing yet more evidence you can't use the relevant terminology properly, always good when a hack picks up a shovel and gets digging.

A toroidal solenoid takes a different form,

$$B = \mu_0 \frac{N}{L}j = \mu_0n j$$

No, that's an expression for a magnetic field, not a toroidal solenoid. It's the magnetic field of a toroidal solenoid, there's a difference. This is yet another demonstration you cannot construct physically correct statements. Anyone familiar with the physics and whose first language is English would immediately notice the mistake. It's like someone who is familiar with English intuitively feeling there is something wrong with the sentence "I live in an house". It shows how you don't really work with this stuff.

And my comment your 'results' don't go anywhere stands. You're just going around in flawed circles making assertions you neither justify nor understand.

/edit

Oh and I like how you started a debate proposal, didn't ask Origin or myself if we'd participate, simply put our names down as being on the opposing side from you, didn't inform us you'd done that, didn't ask us for any input on what precisely we might wish to have as the proper, precise title of a debate, didn't ask if we had the time or desire, and then neither of us had even seen the thread you declared I'd refused to take part. Jesus H Christ, are you so desperate to try to convince yourself you're not just pissing your existence down the drain you'll sink to that? I'm sure this comes as news to Origin, seeing as he hasn't read the thread yet and I only did because 'gravity' on the main forum page caught my eye. Your attempt at presenting your case was just to repeat your assertion. That in itself fails to meet necessary rules for the formal debate forum so you're obviously incapable of having a proper debate on this anyway, even if I were to agree to it. Which I don't because this forum is ample and means I don't have to worry about the time conditions the formal debate forum has. You see there's this little thing I have to do called a job, which is going to eat into my free time, both evenings and weekends, as the team I'm in completes a project by the end of the month. Coming into this forum to slap you around is entertainment I do when I wish, without any feelings of annoying commitment. This somewhat haphazard schedule is still more than enough to point out you're in way over your head anyway.

This is just another illustration of your general habit of being dishonest. It illustrates the sort of mentality you have in regards to proper discourse. Not scientific discourse, that is clearly beyond your capabilities, but even basic honest discourse. This is pretty poor, even for you Reiku. I really do wait for the day when you grow out of all of this. Unfortunately it just keeps going. Ask yourself, do you want to be here in 5 years, posting the same crap, telling the same lies, making the same sock puppets? Even now you can look back at the last 5+ years and see how much time you've wasted you could have spent learning actual physics, not trying trying to play physicist. Do you really want to wake up in years to come and realise you squandered a decade of your life doing this crap and have nothing to show for it? God I hope you actually have a job, at least that'll mean you contribute something to society and this isn't the totality of your existence.

 

[Gregg Schaffter]

And we're back to my original point. You couldn't use 'topology' clearly and thus when I suggested a meaning, since the topology of a wire is rarely referred to as such because the wire itself is not actually a torus, you didn't disagree. This only proves my point that you don't know what you're talking about because you cannot use the terminology properly. The fact you've been lifting this from pdfs doesn't negate what I said or show I don't know what I'm talking about, it shows you cannot even parrot things properly!!

And again you show you can't use 'topology' properly as a label. A path in a torus is a path. A path in a plane in a path. Both the plane and torus have particular topologies. Do you refer to normal paths as 'topological paths'? No, yet the space the path is embedded in will have a particular topology. A path moving through a torus will not inherit the topological structure of the torus. Yes, there are some paths in a torus you will not be able to construct for a plane but a single path is insufficient to correctly define the topology. Actually this goes into some very deep mathematics. Could you tell me it's name?

Oh look, you've been buzzword hunting. Farsight likes to wheel out that paper too. It isn't terribly convincing. But thanks for providing yet more evidence you can't use the relevant terminology properly, always good when a hack picks up a shovel and gets digging.

No, that's an expression for a magnetic field, not a toroidal solenoid. It's the magnetic field of a toroidal solenoid, there's a difference. This is yet another demonstration you cannot construct physically correct statements. Anyone familiar with the physics and whose first language is English would immediately notice the mistake. It's like someone who is familiar with English intuitively feeling there is something wrong with the sentence "I live in an house". It shows how you don't really work with this stuff.

And my comment your 'results' don't go anywhere stands. You're just going around in flawed circles making assertions you neither justify nor understand.

/edit

Oh and I like how you started a debate proposal, didn't ask Origin or myself if we'd participate, simply put our names down as being on the opposing side from you, didn't inform us you'd done that, didn't ask us for any input on what precisely we might wish to have as the proper, precise title of a debate, didn't ask if we had the time or desire, and then neither of us had even seen the thread you declared I'd refused to take part. Jesus H Christ, are you so desperate to try to convince yourself you're not just pissing your existence down the drain you'll sink to that? I'm sure this comes as news to Origin, seeing as he hasn't read the thread yet and I only did because 'gravity' on the main forum page caught my eye. Your attempt at presenting your case was just to repeat your assertion. That in itself fails to meet necessary rules for the formal debate forum so you're obviously incapable of having a proper debate on this anyway, even if I were to agree to it. Which I don't because this forum is ample and means I don't have to worry about the time conditions the formal debate forum has. You see there's this little thing I have to do called a job, which is going to eat into my free time, both evenings and weekends, as the team I'm in completes a project by the end of the month. Coming into this forum to slap you around is entertainment I do when I wish, without any feelings of annoying commitment. This somewhat haphazard schedule is still more than enough to point out you're in way over your head anyway.

This is just another illustration of your general habit of being dishonest. It illustrates the sort of mentality you have in regards to proper discourse. Not scientific discourse, that is clearly beyond your capabilities, but even basic honest discourse. This is pretty poor, even for you Reiku. I really do wait for the day when you grow out of all of this. Unfortunately it just keeps going. Ask yourself, do you want to be here in 5 years, posting the same crap, telling the same lies, making the same sock puppets? Even now you can look back at the last 5+ years and see how much time you've wasted you could have spent learning actual physics, not trying trying to play physicist. Do you really want to wake up in years to come and realise you squandered a decade of your life doing this crap and have nothing to show for it? God I hope you actually have a job, at least that'll mean you contribute something to society and this isn't the totality of your existence.

The people who despisd Galileo thought the same of him, but he became a good inspiration to astronomy.

 

[origin]

Yes and many people thought bozo was a clown - and in fact he was.

 

[wlminex]

AethelwulfL Glad you came back after your one-day 'ban' . . . . attaboy . . . . !! I too, have in the past, considered the 'toroidal topology' . . . . as two configurations which I humorously termed the "open" bagel and the "closed" bagel visualizations.