An Idea

[Fredrick]

I think we have difficulty in communicating at times because we all have our favorite medium, be it math, words or pictures, to convey abstract concepts. As for me I really require a picture or image before I can begin to understand it. I'm not sure which came first language or cave pictures.

We are all limited by our skills, Pat. The nice thing is that we can communicate, and if we give each other space to get mutual understanding going, we end up with understanding each other.

In English, it is often hard to tell where words came from, because we use three times as many words as the normal other languages. Many of our English words are not English at all, so it is easy to lose the direct connecting to the original meaning of the words we're using. The other languages with the normal size vocabulary often use words that contain a visualization that is rather easy to grasp.

Let me use a few examples from English that aren't really English. To 'explain' is to out-lay (lay-out), 'extra' is out-through, to 'concentrate' is with-middlepointing, to 'collaborate' is to with-working, 'comprehension' is with-grip (with-grasp). As you can tell, all these words are quite pictorial/spatial.

Since English is an Germanic language, and if you can distinguish between the original English and the not-original English words, you can then start playing with the original meanings of the real English words as well. It helps if you studied or speak Dutch/German or a Scandinavian language, yet most European languages have a background from the same setting (if you go back far enough). This is not a matter of science, but there can be a high degree of understanding.

The word prove is recognizable from the Dutch word proeven, to taste, and both words could be related to the Latin probare, to probe, to try — as in try and you'll find out. To handle is a verb that should speak for it self, since the real-English word hand is so easily recognizable. The word nothing is also easy, a contraction of no (or not) and thing. One can have a lot of fun when recognizing where the meaning of a word originated. I would say, close to all words have a positional background, which should not surprise us, because Einstein already mentioned we live in a reality in which position is everything.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Notes on Nothing

If something could be made from Nothing,
Anything could and would spring out anywhere, anytime.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Forever Fields of Reality

Michael Faraday introduced
One of the most radical ideas in science.
They thought that he had, for once, gone too far.

Particles became rather irrelevant,
Being mere spigots through which forces flowed.

The real stuff of reality was the forces flowing,
The particles being only the source.

The burden of reality had shifted,
For the space between particles became primary.
Particles were only the intersection
Of the forces that wove the universe.

Forces create stresses in space,
A superhighway
Of how to get from here to there.

An electron wiggles in the sun,
Tweaking the E/M field;
The ripples travel for 8 minutes
Then tickle an electron in your eye.

You see the light.
Light is a tweak.

Physics has never been the same since.

The field concept became real,
The idea being the same as the thing,
Fudging forever the difference
Between something and nothing;

Yet, fields are made of something real,
For they have energy.

Einstein called the field
“A change in the concept of reality…
The most profound and fruitful one
That has come to physics since Newton.”

Matter, then, is simply a place where
Some of the field happens to be concentrated.

Matter travels like a wave in a rope,
But the rope itself does not travel.

The field is not so much
Something in space,
But more like of space.

This is why all particles of a type are identical;
For they are manifestations
Of their fields everywhere the same.

The field takes on a life of its own,
Even when the object that created it is gone.
The traveling kinks continue;
They propagate endlessly.

Where the vacuum is free of matter
It is not free of field, but filled with it.

Energy and matter are the same stuff,
But it takes a whole lot of energy to make matter.

Field is the bridge between matter and empty space.

Fields can’t go away,
As they’re part of the structure of the vacuum;
When in their quietest possible state
They are the vacuum.

This is about as close to nothing
As anything ever gets.

Forces act on things,
While matter is acted upon.
You can walk through a field,
But you cannot walk through a wall.

Kinks in fields can pile atop one another;
Kinks in matter hold each other at arm’s length.

Yet, somehow, beneath it all,
They are kindred spirits, perhaps.

Faraday made fields real;
Quantum mechanics made them magic—
And lumpy—the currency of QM.

Everything melts, via uncertainty,
When we try to measure a quantum property.

But this, too, means that no quantum property
Can ever be zero, for zero is a precise amount,
That is, motion can never ever cease.

Try to pin down an electron,
Such as putting it in a box,
And it increasingly moves about,
Ever faster.

It is heads or tails while it is still spinning?
Well, it is just a fuzzy both yet neither.

In a way, QM eliminated
The very idea of zero
From the physical world,
As ‘nothing’ never sleeps,
But is ever up to something.

(To be con’t someday
To see if the vacuum
Lives on borrowed energy.)

[Fredrick]

No the little guys are too small to see.

Gell-Mann not only arbitrarily came up with his fractional charge to explain how 3 quarks could make up a proton and a neutron but he had to also arbitrarily come up with a concept of an up and down quark. The up +2/3 charge the down quark -1/3 charge.

His model needs gluons to keep it confined and presently there is no good explanation for the asymptotic feedom exhibited by the 3 quarks.

My model requires no gluons for confinement or for QCD to be present, and my model SHOWS why the quarks have asymptotic freedom.

Which model to you has the better representational faithfulness.

Best,

Pat

P.S. My An Idea rests on logic and simplicity to explain the observed phenomena of confinement and asymptotic freedom of the 3 quarks.

P.P.S. If you have a better model of the 3 quarks being confined with asymptotic freedom capabilities please share it with me.

Okay, I will, Pat. But before I energize Lloyd into commenting that my words aren't scientific words, I'll declare right here that this delivery is a philosophical delivery (even when only based on the scientific information). The reason is simple for using philosophy rather than science, because in science we look from the outside in — and cannot other than bump into the restrictions that are associated with inward action. With philosophy, we look from the inside out, and therefore have no restrictions to bump into. It gets tricky when we start to mention something that is (too) far out, but if we tie it in to the matter at hand we should be safe.

There is a lot we know about quarks. Quarks have never been encountered as occurring independently (though as a fact of this always being true, we have not established that exact proof-in-the-pudding, so we are still formulating this information in the non-absolute way).

And we also know (or many suspect this to be the case) that the quarks must represent some kind of duality expressed — some oppositionality taking shape.

And that is all we need to know for a philosophical delivery.



Let's make it easy on ourselves and go for the simplest oppositional pair we know: Yes and No.

If we stick to this level, we don't get much further insight, so let's move one level down and apply each of them to each of them. We then have:

1/ Yes to Yes (2Y)
2/ Yes to No (YN)
3/ No to Yes
4/ No to No

The positions 2Y and YN are confirmations, and numbers 3 and 4 are not. If we fill in the equation with actual matter, for instance, posed by the question Do you want to go to the right? then we can state that 2Y means moving to the right: Yes to go and Yes to right. We can then see that YN means continuing/going straight (and with matter always on the move, using continuing as an action is appropriate): Yes to go and No to right.

Now, if we get a No to going to the right and a No to going straight, we basically have a standstill. There are two options to a standstill in light of the result: we stand still or we move to the left. The standing still is kind of not possible for just a proton all by itself floating around in space, but keep this in mind for now. Moving to the left is an automatic result if the other parts continue. If I hold one leg steady on the ground and move the other leg, I will start making a turn. This can go on till it is full-circle and without interruption this can become an eternal aspect. Within the entire universe, we will therefore always find a left-handed direction under similar conditions.

Both versions of No can be considered the same in position. If we say No to an offered icecream or No to an offered 1 million rubles, we end up with the same we had: we did not follow up on the offer. Rejection is mighty powerful that way (though some resist the icecream offer better than the 1 million — depending what the 1 million are offered for). We can safely take the two versions of No and turn them into a single answer (N2). All by itself No does not amount to much.

Getting to the proton, we have two positions of yes (2Y and YN) and one position of no (N2). We have only one No in the proton, because only the YN presents that opportunity. The YN connects to the 2Y and the N2. If you demand my stating which No is the No here, then I will identify the No as the one that says No to Yes. But I rather leave them as N2.

This is not the end of the story, because the electron insists there is no question at this level and states from the outside of the matter that an answer at this level is stupid. Allow me to call this electron, Lloyd, a continuous statement of overall opposition to the local oppositional reality created by 2Y, YN, and N2.

I asked you previously if you could give me more details on the existence of protons with and protons without an electron, Pat, but I did not receive an answer. Wiki made me think there are these two versions of the proton (with and without electron), and I was wondering in what kind of quantities the two versions exist. Still, one can imagine that after a billion years or so of the electron stating the same old thing, it will have opted to remain mute. That is, unless a dire new situation starts to occur, or a hanging in the balance takes place (i.e. earth, solar system, galaxy), because then the electron will speak up again of course (un-mutes itself).

Now if we subsequently look at the neutron, we see a single Yes and two No's. As already explained, the No is factually a single answer, but contains in reality a duality of its own. No is either a stopping of the turn (hence, going left) or No is a stopping of the continuation (staying in place). However, a basis is required to stop (and as said, with just the proton there is no stopping), and the neutron is only a creation around the No.

There is only a single Yes in the neutron, because there is only one Yes here, saying Yes to No: YN. The 2Y will not have any of this because it does not say Yes to No, it only says Yes to Yes. Meanwhile, we have a No to No, and a No to Yes in the neutron. Okay, I guess it really doesn't matter if we combine the two No's into one or pronounce each separately. Let's make this a full-delivery and mention them separately.

Now the neutron is neutral, because we do not have an actual outcome when we just have the neutron. We know that ending up with No is kind of an empty-handed situation. Combined with the proton, however, we have an independently existing entity that can go forward (continue), go right, go left, and stop in place, something the proton all by itself cannot do. Because of the neutron, the proton has a base.

We have six parts for control, even though there is quite some doubling going on.

Yes to Yes: once.
Yes to No: twice.
No: thrice (twice No to Yes, and once No to No).
Electron: once (when un-muted).

I am sure we can turn this into a Venn Diagram, Pat.

[labelwench]

Rejection is mighty powerful that way (though some resist the icecream offer better than the 1 million — depending what the 1 million are offered for).
Originally posted by Frederick

A well-dressed gentleman approaches an attractive lady, with a proposition.

"Would you be my intimate companion in the venue of your choice for a million dollars?"

"I believe that could be arranged", the woman responded.

"And could we make a similar arrangement for the sum of $100.00?", presses the man.

"What kind of woman do you take me for?", she shrills indignantly.

"I believe we have already established that fact. Now we are refining the details."

With apologies, if neccessary, to any I may offend.

I am, laboriously, tracking this process by which gentlemen, engaged in dialogue, refine and redefine the details.

Do carry on....

[Profpat]

Can you show me an image, Fredrick, and sure you can use a Venn diagram (set theory), octants, matrix algebra whatever. Your words confuse me. Maybe LLoyd can follow them. I have the brain of a 6 year old.

You're right about the protons usually having 1 electron but sometimes less and sometimes more. I've been rethinking my position on electrons in that they may be an actual particle in their own right namely a string. So I thought maybe the beam got interrupted or it split, but nothing yet to describe ionization, but I haven't given up, or else you have to explain why the E/M force doesn't crash the electron into the proton.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

I wonder, in answer to my original question, as to what form or shape the pure energy in E = mc2 looks like, perhaps it does take on a 2 dimensional dualistic flat shape surface area like the Tao? When you approach light speed doesn't everything flatens out?

Best,

Pat

An image with a formula what could be better, no words needed.

[Profpat]

One way of thinking of a matter wave (or a photon) is to think of a wave packet. Normal waves look with this:

having no beginning and no end. A composition of several waves of different wavelength can produce a wave packet that looks like this:

And so I think it is consistent that since mass is made up by 3 quarks, that creates 7/8 vibrational area, that when mass converts to energy it would become a wave packet of several waves, as the proton would also be made up of several different wave frequencies.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Information Systems:

[G_burnett]

Hi Lorrina;

I think we have difficulty in communicating at times because we all have our favorite medium, be it math, words or pictures, to convey abstract concepts. As for me I really require a picture or image before I can begin to understand it. I'm not sure which came first language or cave pictures.

Best,

Pat

I think I have postulated prior to the fact that half the world thinks in pictures and the other half thinks in words... real fact to this. graham