The Dance of Shiva

[JAK]

Glad you're back, Felix!

But JAK - photons don't collide - if they did then we would not be able to see anything!

I think the electron/photon relationship is fundamental and the electron/positron collision is a clue but I'm not sure where to go on this one? ...

...
Just back from getting to grips with Fredrick's tome and I'm happy to listen for now. Lots of good stuff but I haven't yet placed it in my context.

I would desperately like to understand the relationship between the electron, the photon and the neutrino. ...

If a photon is actually a photon cloud surrounding/revolving around a neutrino center (or a dual neutrino center), then it may be likened to a grain of sand in a football stadium. Under normal conditions with headlights of passing cars pointed at each other on the highway, photons will probably not "collide". In fact, neutrinos seem to be so fine-grained, that it is believed they can pass through the Earth like photons through clear glass. Thus, a head-on collision of neutrinos would seem almost nil and not likely to be seen in any experiments before the the late-20th century (if even then).

However, a laser is an extreme scenario where oddities can occur. If the collision is actually between neutrinos and not the photon cloud, this may be the extremely rare occurrence and a possible exception to your rule: "... photons don't collide - if they did then we would not be able to see anything!"

This blurb from a 1997 APS meeting struck me as pertinent:

Search for Neutrino Oscillations
Two years ago at this meeting a group of physicists from Los Alamos presented evidence for neutrino oscillation, the transformation of neutrinos from one type to another, in an experiment in which a beam of neutrinos strikes a target. The Los Alamos team, represented by William Louis, and the collaboration at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector, represented by Kenneth K. Young of the University of Washington, recently concluded major new data analyses. Kamiokande also searches for neutrinos from the sun, from distant supernovas, and from the decay of protons. Based on the first 100 days of research in Japan, Young reported that there are hints that not only does the neutrino have mass and can change its form ("flavor"), but it may also be more abundant at night than during the day, and more plentiful during certain times of the year. If the neutrino is found to have mass, it could constitute part of the dark matter that is believed to comprise as much as 90% of the universe. - http://www.aps.org/publications/apsn...highlights.cfm

What especially caught my eye was the transvestite appearance of neutrinos: "... hints that not only does the neutrino have mass and can change its form ('flavor') ...". Does it actually change its form? Or is it actually a neutrino pair with 2 flavors (+ & -)? The latter would help me build my case for photons having a core built of a pair of neutrinos.

(Meanwhile, I grow frustrated in not finding the article or a reference to the 2 lasers pointed at each other and creating matter and antimatter. The reverse, a positron and electron crashing and becoming 2 photons, is a strong and potent suggestion. But the particles emerging from colliding light beams seems much more provocative and convincing.)

[JAK]

...
I would desperately like to understand the relationship between the electron, the photon and the neutrino.

Though I won't yet pull my first photon/electron/neutrino scenario, with the dual posineutrinos or dual antineutrinos placed into particles, it was ugly. I think my 2nd flavor, below, is prettier, but it has an ugly part, too. Here goes:

PHOTON W/ PAIRED NEUTRINO CORE - FLAVOR #2
A cleaner and simpler approach to the photon/electron/neutrino situation is to have three particles: photon, electron, positron - each with either 1 or 2 neutrinos.

Scenario -

Photon: the photon would have a core of paired neutrinos with opposite helicity.

Electron/positron: should the photon core be split, the individual neutrinos would transfer their helicity into angular momentum (spin) and, in doing so, create a charge (+ or -). These single neutrinos would become separate cores of 2 particles - one matter and one antimatter.

(There would be no pairings of antineutrino to antineutrino nor posineutrino to posineutrino as in flavor #1.)

ADVANTAGE: the overall concept is cleaner, and the attraction of an electron to a proton remains the same as before.

DISADVANTAGE: Without a pair of neutrinos, it would seem that the mass of an electron or a positron would be slightly less than a photon. (The difference in mass would need to be determined by the ability to do work for an equal amount of electrons and photons. Right?) If the electrons are deemed more massive than photons, then the mass seemingly must be directly related to the acquired spin and/or interaction with the aether. In other words, spin (angular momentum) and mass seemingly must be directly related such that the electron exhibits more mass.

Okay, guys, get out your p=mv calculators. What needs to happen to make flavor #2 work?

(And the answer may directly relate to "time" - the stem on my funnel analogy for the curvature of space. Time relates in some way to the depth of the "pit" created in space/time.)

Thanks!

[Fredrick]

Now we're cookin'. As I understand you, you are postulating a mechanism allowing for a central factor about which a photon revolves. My goal is to reconcile the conversion of photons into particles (electrons & positrons) and back again.

So, where does the electron pick up the neutrino on it's way into becoming an electron? And where does that neutrino go when the electron meets a positron and turns back into a photon?

I suggest that the neutrino is inherent in the photon. It is a part of the photon. And if 2 photons can create an electron (with an antineutrino) and a positron (with a posineutrino), then both neutrinos were part of the photons. In other words, a photon revolves around a pair of neutrinos - a "photon cloud" tied to a neutrino pair.

Could a posineutrino and an antineutrino fulfill the single dimension in 2D+ you mentioned? Perhaps, "A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B aligned in the same spot (tail), or A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B straight-oppositionally aligned (wings)"?

And back to my "Bill/Mary" analogy, if Aunt Neutrino and Uncle Neutrino get separated in a melee caused by two lasers pointed at each other, then they will quickly find another mate among the loose neutrinos. And the photons quickly jump aboard. Should there be no neutrinos of the preferred "gender" nearby, they give in to their urge to pair-up and grab the nearest neighbor. The "magic" of being a photon is lost, and they fall out of the mainstream as particles. But now they are an "electron cloud" (or "positron cloud").

This brings another question to mind. Is the photon a real manifestation? Or is it just the swirling "dust" created by a pair of neutrinos as they zip through the Aether?

Thoughts?

Only good thoughts, JAK. I hope the following is going to make sense, but you need to do the footwork here (especially since you are more at home with photons than I am). When looking at the basics of light as source (red-blue-green) and as reflection (red-blue-yellow), the yellow and green are not each other's counterparts, but the exact same value of a different state: original (source) or changed (reflected). Red and blue seemingly do not change in original or changed state.

Please understand that the pyramid of colors is based on red-blue-yellow-green, but it is only an overall concept, in which green and yellow do not occur/exist in the same condition. However, each exists and helps fill our reality. Blue and red occur in both parts.

In as far as parts giving up on their original counterpart, there is a point (possibly very soon) after which parts will find overruling attraction to other parts. I am not going for Uncle and Aunt in this case for it implies a very specific relationship that may be a lot stronger than this level allows. So, instead I'll go for the following: you are walking down a street and you want a beer. You may hold out for a bar that sells Brand X, the one you just had, but if you're thirsty and realize you're stuck in small town Z with just one bar without X then Brand Y will more than likely do.

So, where does the electron pick up the neutrino on it's way into becoming an electron? I'd say in an oxygen bar (bad joke, I know). They sell you your neutrino, which alters your state, but sooner or later you need to let go. I do not know the exact location of the bathroom, but I'd say it's probably somewhere around. Stop drinking the stuff and you'll sober up.

There are no single dimensions in the concept of reality. There are fake ones, but no real ones. Our reality is always 3D or 2D+ (which is the same). The 3D concept allows us to look at things differently than when we follow the 2D+ concept. The single difference is that 2D+ places a center part next to an outside part as most important distinction. Otherwise they are the same. Possibly, you need to take a look at the photons and imagine how some parts take in a more central role than other parts that play a more exterior role. You may replace A and non-A, for instance, with connected and disconnected, two features belonging to a single 'rod.' Together with B and non-B, you have an actual entity. So if you come across an entity you try to find where it is connected and how it deals with its disconnection(s). In the example, the entity would not be person, but 'thirsty person.'

[JAK]

The Dance of Shiva
...
Science tells us that particles pop in and out of existence all the time – a sort of quantum foam – but denies the existence of an underlying mechanism by which they may be created. The space-time continuum is taken for granted but no-one can describe it. Quantum mechanics, the most successful theory ever, tells us that things come in very small packets at the fundamental level. This should be obvious if we accept that, at any level of perception, there will be a basic building block which is, at that time indivisible. QM requires that there is an underlying structure to bring about the standard model of particles.

Occam’s Razor tells us that, where there are a number of solutions to a problem and the correct one is not apparent, then the simplest one is the most likely. Richard Feynman said if you can’t explain something simply – then it’s probably not right. What this paper seeks to do is to examine a possible link between GR and QM which goes back to first principles. It further seeks to question some of the other current assumptions which are taken for granted by the scientific community.

The Gravitation Field

... the Higgs Boson – the particle responsible for the attribution of mass

... The mason is, thus, an alternative explanation to the Higgs Boson as the provider of mass. It is contended that the Higgs Boson will not be found as it does not exist; the provider of mass (the mason) is in a different form to ordinary matter and will not be detectable by high energy colliders using ordinary matter.

... Gravity and mass/ general relativity


One of the major problems facing physics is to explain the disparity between the strengths of the forces – why is gravity so weak? Another problem is our inability to observe the graviton. Both are easily explained – gravity is not a force – it is an effect caused by the bending of the gravitational field (or the space-time continuum as Einstein put it).

... What, then, holds the gravitational field together (and apart). ... the basic framework of the gravitational field and the links, which are joined pairs, may be referred to as ‘gravitons’. Their interlinking and elasticity is related to their ‘spin’ 2 which is predicted for the graviton. This field will be stretched and distorted in the presence of matter to give the gravitational effect apparent in general relativity.


... does away with the need for the interchange of ‘gluons’ to describe the force.


... Bosons
Why does the standard model utilise gluons to describe this force/connection?

... without motion, matter does not exist

... As waves, they have no location only momentum.

... Thus we have matter in two forms. As a wave it is only information with momentum but no location and when a particle is created, as the waveform collapses, it momentarily has location but no momentum. This is the basis of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

... It is proposed that time is a mechanical function of the gravitational field and works like a digital clock controlled by the masons.


... we may have an explanation for both quintessence (as quantum foam is often called) and the apparent random effect of quantum mechanics. This is the Dance of Shiva.

... The argument goes like this. Each and every mason emits a chronon according to a set time interval.

... Creating extra dimensions to make theoretical equations work is not an easy matter to explain and the use of additional ‘dimensions’ may simply be required in order to accommodate all of the parameters involved in the extension of the strings. These may be seen as degrees of freedom rather than dimensions.

Atoms and Electrons
Earlier we looked at the possible structure of the nucleus of an atom which consists of a proton and a neutron which are connected by the strong force. How does this relate to an atom and its associated electrons? Based on the picture above, the helium nucleus would look like this:




... Here’s one possibility though it’s more likely that they entangle in sets of three to make up triangles which encompass a sphere.

Maybe Fredrick's pyramids?

The Casimir Effect
If two plates are brought very close to each other, in a vacuum, they suffer an attraction which varies inversely according to the fourth power of the distance between the plates. This is put down to local variations in gravity, which indeed it is but not in the way in which it is currently explained. The force will go unnoticed under normal circumstances. However, as we bring the plates very close to each other the effect becomes exaggerated. If the plates were only a Planck length apart then the force would be close to infinite.

Gravitation Waves and the Speed of Gravity
The speed of gravity has long been a mystery for physics. To all intents and purposes, it appears to have an instantaneous action even at great distance. How can this be when relativity tells us that nothing can travel faster than light? The explanation is simple – relativity tells us that particles in the real world cannot travel faster than light. But gravity does not consist of particles and it does not have a moving boson to transmit it. As described above, gravity is a distortion of the fabric of space ...

I suggest that gravity is a distortion of the fabric of time ...

... as the gravitational field is not part of the world we perceive. It may well have its own time mechanism but it will not conform to time as we know it and any action may appear to us to be instantaneous. This is akin to a world where we only experience waves as sound. Any effect involving light would appear instantaneous until such time as devices were developed which could deal with the new discovery.
...The Outer Limits
... what would happen at the outer limit of the gravitational field. Within this paradigm it would appear that empty space could exist on its own and without anything to exist in it.

... Relativity
...If Lorentz’ explanation of relativity is accepted (as we do) then no problem exists.

I think my "time funnel" or "time cone" idea might be useful. Matter goes down the throat of the funnel of time. The deeper into the funnel, the tighter the perimeter. As the funnel deepens, the matter within appears more massive because it is more tightly constrained. With a curved pocket in space/time, the depth of the pocket is, thus, related to time. The deeper into the pocket, the more mass is attributed to the object. Other objects fall into the central massive object not be cause they are attracted to it. The fall into it for the same reason that water flows through a pipe or funnel. The water is not attracted into a funnel, it is constrained by the funnel. Simmilarly, matter is not attracted to matter, it is forced and constrained by a funnel of the fabric of space/time. And this fabric of space/time directly relates to magnetism.

The Casimir Effect would be explained by the two plates creating two potholes (funnels cones), and the attraction would actually be the 2 plates falling toward a center of a combined pothole in the fabric of time. The mathematical relationship is more related to the slope of the funnel.

The weak force is at the perimeter of the funnel where the depth of the pothole is shallow and widest, and the strong force is at the center of the funnel where the pothole is deepest and most narrow.

Matter is not attracted to itself. It is constrained by the curvature of the aether of space/time.

Thoughts?

[Fredrick]

Hi JAK, Fredrick, Pat

Just back from getting to grips with Fredrick's tome and I'm happy to listen for now. Lots of good stuff but I haven't yet placed it in my context.

I would desperately like to understand the relationship between the electron, the photon and the neutrino.

regards
Felix

Felix, I hope you read how I, too, am bowing to specialists in various fields. I consider myself a specialist in understanding general structures, overall concepts, and I am very much trying to have others see the dual natured concept of the pyramid. Yet important is the footwork each of us have to do ourselves. Climbing the tallest mountain is not done by having another person carry us; it needs to be done by each ourselves.

The pyramid has four parts and an internal part, all moving along a scale. Of the four parts, two parts are clear-oppositional and 'independent,' and two parts are two sides of one and the same phenomenon dependent on the environment to exist as one or the other version, they do not exist at the same time and place, but together they do provide distinction in 'direction.'

Here is how I had the four parts fit together, though I must start out with 12 particles:
* quarks: up, down, charmed, strange, top, and bottom;
* leptons: electron, muon, and tauon, each with their accompanying neutrino.

I have therefore twelve particles that group together in three different families. Since three is a number really only found in the inorganic world as the number of stages (solid, liquid, and gas), it becomes plausible to suggest that these families are representing the three different stages of one and the same phenomenon. The essential members of each family, two quarks and one lepton with its accompanying neutrino, may then be seen as the four fundamental parts of the pyramid of the particle. The four corners of this pyramid can be referred to as having one set of two making a clear distinction, like a pair of quarks do, and one set of two giving a direction like the lepton with its accompanying neutrino would do.

I am willing to listen to others wanting to rework the pyramid as being twelve (3 X 4) particles that differ in some way from how I presented it.

Just to provide a pyramid with similar characteristics for the four parts, I'll mention the pyramid of wind directions here. This pyramid has North, South, East, and West as the four corners. Two of them, North and South, have an ultimate location of being independent: at their respective poles. Two of them, East and West, do not have such a location and these two wind direction can always turn into the other (depending on the position taken in). Together they are the direction of the spin of the globe. So one set contains an aspect of independence (but taking place within the whole), the other set contains a direction.

Each pyramid has its own 'language' but the division into two sets is always there, with one pair being strong, and the other pair being changeable.

[JAK]

...
Here is how I had the four parts fit together, though I must start out with 12 particles:
* quarks: up, down, charmed, strange, top, and bottom;
* leptons: electron, muon, and tauon, each with their accompanying neutrino.
...

As you know, I would like to reduce the number of features. Fredrick and Felix, do you have a clear idea of why all of these particles are claimed to be separate? Is it possible that we are looking at fewer particles which show multiple "faces"?

I am especially interested in the quarks and gluons:

... Unlike other forces, the force between quarks increases as the distance between the quarks increases. Up to distances about the diameter of a proton, quarks behave as if they were free of one another, a condition called asymptotic freedom. As the quarks move farther apart, the gluons that move between them utilize the energy that they draw from the quark's motion to create more gluons—the larger the number of gluons exchanged among quarks, the stronger the binding force. The gluons thus appear to lock the quarks inside the elementary particles, a condition called confinement. Gluons can also bind with one another to form composite particles called glueballs. - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-gluon.html ...

The gluon might not be a particle, but be part of the aether instead:

FELIX: ... "The speed of gravity has long been a mystery for physics. To all intents and purposes, it appears to have an instantaneous action even at great distance. How can this be when relativity tells us that nothing can travel faster than light? The explanation is simple – relativity tells us that particles in the real world cannot travel faster than light. But gravity does not consist of particles and it does not have a moving boson to transmit it. As described above, gravity is a distortion of the fabric of space and is not, therefore, subject to the laws of the nature which explain the behaviour of matter and energy." ...

This is consistent with Felix's explanation of the Casimir Effect. Thus, gluons and gravitons might be one in the same.

With the encyclopedia entry, "... the quark's motion to create more gluons ..." is sounds like "something" is being created out of nothing which seems to defy the law of the conservation of energy. With Felix's aether, the gluons are everywhere - part of the fabric of space. This approach allows me to maintain a time cone built from the fabric of space. The attraction is in the fabric - not the particles.

[Fredrick]

As you know, I would like to reduce the number of features. Fredrick and Felix, do you have a clear idea of why all of these particles are claimed to be separate? Is it possible that we are looking at fewer particles which show multiple "faces"?

JAK,

The most important aspect to understand of the pyramid is that it is an intricate set of oppositions. Conceptually, all can be boiled down to just two entities in opposition to each other, yet they have multiple faces, each themselves found in oppositional spots.

In the pyramid of forces, for instance, the electric force and the magnetic force are given two spots, even though we all know they can be considered a single force. In the outcome, however, this force does not deliver a single 'product,' rather it shows it has two faces. These two faces of the single force are not identical, and that 'allows' us to either mention them as a single force or as two forces. Which way to describe it best is an academic question, for neither way describes reality better than the other way; both ways together are therefore the ultimate best conceptual delivery (and that shows the pyramid is a concept of concepts, incorporating the two views on one fundamental feature).

So, while both the magnetic force and the electric force exist in a different state, both other forces, the weak and strong nuclear forces, do not change from one state to the other. The two states can then be described as being part of the EM force, and that they (it) do (does) not result in changing the other forces. That is important information to know for it tells us something about the two other forces as well (they are stronger than the EM, i.e. self-based/independent, while the outcome of EM is dependent).

One option is to see this as a pyramid of particles in which the quarks are the entities that are always the oppositional results of a single original force. It is a force that can exist in three different stages/conditions, hence the three pairs of quarks. The original force is basically in-out (in its collective aspect), but each specific delivery is an individualized aspect. The leptons and neutrinos would in this pyramid take in their own oppositional (independent) positions.

I am especially interested in the quarks and gluons:
The gluon might not be a particle, but be part of the aether instead:
This is consistent with Felix's explanation of the Casimir Effect. Thus, gluons and gravitons might be one in the same.

With the encyclopedia entry, "... the quark's motion to create more gluons ..." is sounds like "something" is being created out of nothing which seems to defy the law of the conservation of energy. With Felix's aether, the gluons are everywhere - part of the fabric of space. This approach allows me to maintain a time cone built from the fabric of space. The attraction is in the fabric - not the particles.

I have no comment on this. Please continue your thinking this way, while also keeping an eye out that indeed the synergistic result is automatically more than the parts. Just like the decimal system is already covered by the 8 parts (as found in the image I created of the image found in Pat's thread 'An Idea'). I believe we are thinking alike, JAK, yet we are also using some conceptual parts in different places. I am certain we can get to a completed view in the end.

[JAK]

... The original force is basically in-out (in its collective aspect), but each specific delivery is an individualized aspect. The leptons and neutrinos would in this pyramid take in their own oppositional (independent) positions.
...
I am certain we can get to a completed view in the end.
...

Hi Fredrick,
I am postulating two neutrinos per photon, each with opposite helicity, which seems to correlate to your basic "in-out" original force. We do appear to be coming together.

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick,
I am postulating two neutrinos per photon, each with opposite helicity, which seems to correlate to your basic "in-out" original force. We do appear to be coming together.

Good, JAK. And I do hope you see that the pyramid has kind of the same magical properties as 3D in the 8-ball situation. The eight balls in a 'cube' format have three lines going through them: left-right, up-down, front-back. If the original is a single object then the three pair (or six single) directions help create 8 entities each with a specific location. Together they create a whole, which can also be seen as an entity.

The pyramid is the conceptual delivery of all this with 3 oppositions contained in the one pyramid: top (whole) -bottom (parts), North-South (w/poles), East-West ('just' directions). The pyramid is kind of magical in that it is like the 6 single directions of 3D while also having incorporated the in-out pair. Somehow something goes missing (but is captured within the top 'whole').

So JAK, there is a bit of a mix and match and patchwork to be done. Exciting, not?

[JAK]

... So JAK, there is a bit of a mix and match and patchwork to be done. Exciting, not?

Yes - especially if we all end in agreement on a ToE.

I am working with Robert on various forum structures which would allow us to work on any ToE piece, come back to it later, and/or reference pieces of agreement. This might end up being "wikish" - at least in function if not in style.

Meanwhile, where's the Cat?