|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Space is not a vacuum but Dirac's sea of positrons and that is gravity itself
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote: You've ignored this "does not annihilate" stance in my first question. But since I find it here I now have to ask you is the positron that you speak of the same as the positron that wiki speaks of? "The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the production of two gamma ray photons (see electron-positron annihilation)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron I have not ignored your annihilation quandry. There is a huge difference between production of positrons in a accelerator and then annihilation with an electron. That is particle physics. The positrons I speak of is from the Dirac Sea. Wikipedia has an excellent page on it where I quote the first paragraph: --- quoting Wikipedia on Dirac Sea --- Dirac sea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. It was invented by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons. The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932. Dirac, Einstein and others recognised that it is related to the 'metaphysical' aether [1]: .... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether. - P.A.M. Dirac, 'Is There An Aether?,' Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906. The equation relating energy, mass and momentum in special relativity is: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4, In the special case of a particle at rest (ie p = 0, ) the above equation reduces to E2 = m2c4, which is usually quoted as the familiar E = mc2. However, this is a simplification because, while x*x = x2, we can also see that (-x)*(-x)= x2. Therefore, the correct equation to use to relate energy and mass in the Hamiltonian of the Dirac equation is: E = ± mc2. Here the negative solution is antimatter, discovered by Carl Anderson as the positron. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum field theory, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved --- end quoting --- The sense in which I speak of positrons is the sense of Dirac's Sea. Where SPACE is the same as a sea or ocean of positrons. And this space does not annihilate with the electrons of ordinary matter. Why? I really have no great answer as to why. Perhaps particles and antiparticles can exist in a state in which they are stable and co-mingled without annihilation. This is how a Monopole would act, according to Dirac on pages 45,46 of this Directions in Physics book. So in answer to your question, Space full of positrons, or Sea of Positrons or Ocean of Positrons is very different from a positron produced in a experimental accelerator lab which annihilates a electron. It has been proven by experimental physicists that the vacuum of Space is loaded with positrons and these are called "holes". So Space is not empty and not a vacuum but can be drawn out of as many positrons as one desires to have positrons. Dirac never had the Atom Totality theory to work with. But if you put the Dirac Sea of Positrons with the Atom Totality theory then you solve what gravity is. Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Dirac Sea for it has alot more information about Space being positrons. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Space is not a vacuum but Dirac's sea of positrons and that is gravity itself
On 29 Nov 2006 20:34:48 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote: You've ignored this "does not annihilate" stance in my first question. But since I find it here I now have to ask you is the positron that you speak of the same as the positron that wiki speaks of? "The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the production of two gamma ray photons (see electron-positron annihilation)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron I have not ignored your annihilation quandry. There is a huge difference between production of positrons in a accelerator and then annihilation with an electron. That is particle physics. The positrons I speak of is from the Dirac Sea. Wikipedia has an excellent page on it where I quote the first paragraph: --- quoting Wikipedia on Dirac Sea --- Dirac sea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. It was invented by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons. The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932. Dirac, Einstein and others recognised that it is related to the 'metaphysical' aether [1]: ... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether. - P.A.M. Dirac, 'Is There An Aether?,' Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906. The equation relating energy, mass and momentum in special relativity is: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4, In the special case of a particle at rest (ie p = 0, ) the above equation reduces to E2 = m2c4, which is usually quoted as the familiar E = mc2. However, this is a simplification because, while x*x = x2, we can also see that (-x)*(-x)= x2. Therefore, the correct equation to use to relate energy and mass in the Hamiltonian of the Dirac equation is: E = ± mc2. Here the negative solution is antimatter, discovered by Carl Anderson as the positron. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum field theory, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved --- end quoting --- The sense in which I speak of positrons is the sense of Dirac's Sea. Where SPACE is the same as a sea or ocean of positrons. And this space does not annihilate with the electrons of ordinary matter. Why? I really have no great answer as to why. Perhaps particles and antiparticles can exist in a state in which they are stable and co-mingled without annihilation. This is how a Monopole would act, according to Dirac on pages 45,46 of this Directions in Physics book. So in answer to your question, Space full of positrons, or Sea of Positrons or Ocean of Positrons is very different from a positron produced in a experimental accelerator lab which annihilates a electron. It has been proven by experimental physicists that the vacuum of Space is loaded with positrons and these are called "holes". So Space is not empty and not a vacuum but can be drawn out of as many positrons as one desires to have positrons. Dirac never had the Atom Totality theory to work with. But if you put the Dirac Sea of Positrons with the Atom Totality theory then you solve what gravity is. Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Dirac Sea for it has alot more information about Space being positrons. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies If you want to see the content of "quantum vacuum" see my paper #1 on http://www.dualspace.net Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in the total energy equation. He did very little with it. My analysis demanded to know how empty space could have 8.8uuF/m. The results are amazing, a dozen significant values compared to Dirac's "hole or electron going backward". Vastly stiffer than steel, transmission velocity = c, cell size is Compton WL x alpha. I'm sorry it requires a fair amount of study. The stars of the universe came from expelled electrons at speed of light. The expansion by 1/alphacubed = 2.5 million reduces the density to that of iron. The energy density expands to iron's density at the speed of light. Excuse the turgid exposition. (I don't buy the one big atom, though). John Polasek |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Space is not a vacuum but Dirac's sea of positrons and that is gravity itself
a_plutonium wrote: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote: You've ignored this "does not annihilate" stance in my first question. But since I find it here I now have to ask you is the positron that you speak of the same as the positron that wiki speaks of? "The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2, and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the production of two gamma ray photons (see electron-positron annihilation)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron I have not ignored your annihilation quandry. There is a huge difference between production of positrons in a accelerator and then annihilation with an electron. That is particle physics. The positrons I speak of is from the Dirac Sea. Wikipedia has an excellent page on it where I quote the first paragraph: --- quoting Wikipedia on Dirac Sea --- Dirac sea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. It was invented by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons. The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932. Dirac, Einstein and others recognised that it is related to the 'metaphysical' aether [1]: ... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether. - P.A.M. Dirac, 'Is There An Aether?,' Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906. The equation relating energy, mass and momentum in special relativity is: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4, In the special case of a particle at rest (ie p = 0, ) the above equation reduces to E2 = m2c4, which is usually quoted as the familiar E = mc2. However, this is a simplification because, while x*x = x2, we can also see that (-x)*(-x)= x2. Therefore, the correct equation to use to relate energy and mass in the Hamiltonian of the Dirac equation is: E = ± mc2. Here the negative solution is antimatter, discovered by Carl Anderson as the positron. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum field theory, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved --- end quoting --- The sense in which I speak of positrons is the sense of Dirac's Sea. Where SPACE is the same as a sea or ocean of positrons. And this space does not annihilate with the electrons of ordinary matter. Why? I really have no great answer as to why. Perhaps particles and antiparticles can exist in a state in which they are stable and co-mingled without annihilation. This is how a Monopole would act, according to Dirac on pages 45,46 of this Directions in Physics book. So in answer to your question, Space full of positrons, or Sea of Positrons or Ocean of Positrons is very different from a positron produced in a experimental accelerator lab which annihilates a electron. It has been proven by experimental physicists that the vacuum of Space is loaded with positrons and these are called "holes". So Space is not empty and not a vacuum but can be drawn out of as many positrons as one desires to have positrons. Dirac never had the Atom Totality theory to work with. But if you put the Dirac Sea of Positrons with the Atom Totality theory then you solve what gravity is. Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Dirac Sea for it has alot more information about Space being positrons. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I've spent a little bit of time reviewing the Dirac Sea. It's a bit confusing how to get from its abstract supposition to the actuality of the positron and still see it the way that it was conceived. Is this a sea of electron-positron pairs? No, I suppose not; that would be more the modern quantum view. A sea of negative energy... It's quite confusing which the electron is and which the positron is and if they are particle or continuum. Now that the positron is admitted actual existence and it is admitted to anihillate with the electron I am fully confused. from http://www.answers.com/topic/dirac-sea I see: "In relativistic quantum mechanics, the completely filled, negative energy electron state that comprises a vacuum. If a negative energy electron is promoted to a positive energy state, the hole is perceived as a positron." This implies an inversion of what you are claiming. I am looking for something similar and here Dirac simply is getting electrons for free. The special places are where the electron isn't. These are positrons. I need to stew on this for a while. You've done a nice job of holding up your argument. Some shy away and fade out but you are owning your argument and you deserve credit for that. I can't say that I adopt your model but am happy to admit that some of it may be helpful for my own. That is what we should all be doing here. Scavenging and composting, exploring and building. I am trying to play with what looks like a gravity/thermodynamic construction of a simplex oscillator on a thread titled The Unity Problem. But getting charge into it is pushing toward something like a Dirac Sea. If a point particle excludes a space of radius 'a' about itself what has it excluded? Perhaps the motion of such a particle plows through space. This sort of impedance could set up some standing waves, particularly for a particle oscillator. Such damping appears to be acceptable under the delta emitter since it is already an endlessly active source. Anyhow, your Dirac Sea model is a little bit akin to this and this thought comes from yours. Thanks. -Tim |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
if Dirac had the Atom Totality Space is not a vacuum but Dirac's sea of positrons
John C. Polasek wrote: (snipped) Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in the total energy equation. He did very little with it. John Polasek You meant to say "sea of positrons". But it was a major contribution to physics even if Dirac never ran with it. It laid the foundation for Andersen to find the positron and it laid the foundation for what will be the revolutionary understanding of what SPACE really is and what gravity really is. The trouble that Dirac had, in which he could not run with his Sea of Positrons is that he never had the idea the universe itself is one big atom. If Dirac had the Atom Totality instead of the Big Bang. Dirac would then have revised the Maxwell Equations (probably even better than what I am doing and much quicker than I am capable of doing). And Dirac would have unified gravity with EM better than I. I say better than I because Dirac was so much more immersed in Quantum Mechanics with his own Dirac Equation that he would have a much easier time of putting it together with Atom Totality. And another issue. Monopoles. Dirac spent a huge amount of his time on monopoles. Most physicists during Dirac and after Dirac are befuddled as to why he spent so much time on monopoles. These lesser scientists were befuddled because they do not understand that a giant of science knows what is important and which these lesser scientists view as exotic or remote. The key to monopoles is that it clears up Maxwell Equations, gravity, and quantum mechanics. So unless you solve monopoles, most of physics will be muddy. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
how space is a monopole Space is not a vacuum but Dirac's sea of positrons and that is gravity itself
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote: I've spent a little bit of time reviewing the Dirac Sea. It's a bit confusing how to get from its abstract supposition to the actuality of the positron and still see it the way that it was conceived. Is this a sea of electron-positron pairs? No, I suppose not; that would be more the modern quantum view. A sea of negative energy... It's quite confusing which the electron is and which the positron is and if they are particle or continuum. Now that the positron is admitted actual existence and it is admitted to anihillate with the electron I am fully confused. Apparently the Cosmos we view and observe is two things in one. It is the mass and matter as one entity and this mass and matter are bits and pieces of the last six electrons of the Atom Totality. So when you see a star or galaxy or planet you are seeing a tiny piece of the last 6 electrons of the Atom Totality. The other entity is Space and this space is the Dirac Sea of Positrons. Space is not a vacuum and not some empty receptacle. Apparently, electrons when they float around the nucleus of an atom need a medium in which those electrons can float. And that medium is the antiparticle energy of the electrons acting as one entity. This positron Space is not to be thought of as a vial or tube of positrons. It is to be thought of as a physical entity of just pure energy with a magnetic moment that corresponds to the force of gravity for any mass embedded in that space region. In his book Directions in Physics, Dirac tells us how stable a monopole should be. And it should be very stable. In that sense, although it needs very much more elaboration, if we view the Cosmic Space as a monopole of Dirac's Sea of Positrons, would that tell us why these positrons do not encounter electrons of the "ordinary cosmos" and thus annihilate in matter to antimatter contact? Is there something about the stability of a Cosmic Monopole that annihilation is rare or seldom to happen? Perhaps annihilation occurs when there is intense gravity such as quasars? When you bend space so much that you cause a leak in the monopole and positrons materialize and annihilate with ordinary matter. I do not know and is a topic for future investigation. from http://www.answers.com/topic/dirac-sea I see: "In relativistic quantum mechanics, the completely filled, negative energy electron state that comprises a vacuum. If a negative energy electron is promoted to a positive energy state, the hole is perceived as a positron." This implies an inversion of what you are claiming. I am looking for something similar and here Dirac simply is getting electrons for free. The special places are where the electron isn't. These are positrons. I need to stew on this for a while. You've done a nice job of holding up your argument. Some shy away and fade out but you are owning your argument and you deserve credit for Only because I have an Atom Totality theory which can further the idea of Dirac Sea. If I never had the Atom Totality I would have bypassed and skipped over the Dirac Sea. that. I can't say that I adopt your model but am happy to admit that some of it may be helpful for my own. That is what we should all be doing here. Scavenging and composting, exploring and building. I am trying to play with what looks like a gravity/thermodynamic construction of a simplex oscillator on a thread titled The Unity Problem. But getting charge into it is pushing toward something like a Dirac Sea. If a point particle excludes a space of radius 'a' about itself what has it excluded? Perhaps the motion of such a particle plows through space. This sort of impedance could set up some standing waves, particularly for a particle oscillator. Such damping appears to be acceptable under the delta emitter since it is already an endlessly active source. Anyhow, your Dirac Sea model is a little bit akin to this and this thought comes from yours. Thanks. -Tim I have too many plates of science all a cooking that I cannot stew over someone elses problems-- Unity problem (whatever that is). Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
if Dirac had the Atom Totality Space is not a vacuum but Dirac's sea of positrons
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote: John C. Polasek wrote: (snipped) Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in the total energy equation. He did very little with it. John Polasek You meant to say "sea of positrons". No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example. An electron, when removed, left a "hole". 3 years later in 1932 Anderson observed the positron but Dirac did not seize on the opportunity to replace his "hole" notion. In any case there is no room in his sea for electron positron pairs. The sea of electrons is just not interesting. (It merely "solves" the minus sign in the energy equation). No physicist of that time was acquainted with the property of vacuum eps0. Cgs was de rigueur (and still is for old timers) with inane equations like: D = E and B = H in place of D = eps0E and B = mu0H By finding how eps0 = 8.8uuF/m could occur in the vacuum, I have found all its secrets as pair-space. See the permittivity paper #1 at http://www.dualspace.net. But it was a major contribution to physics even if Dirac never ran with it. It laid the foundation for Andersen to find the positron and it laid the foundation for what will be the revolutionary understanding of what SPACE really is and what gravity really is. Space is a void and gravity is the result of electrons being removed from pair-space during creation creating pressure gradients from Navier Stokes equation. The trouble that Dirac had, in which he could not run with his Sea of Positrons is that he never had the idea the universe itself is one big atom. If Dirac had the Atom Totality instead of the Big Bang. Dirac would then have revised the Maxwell Equations (probably even better than what I am doing and much quicker than I am capable of doing). And Dirac would have unified gravity with EM better than I. I say better than I because Dirac was so much more immersed in Quantum Mechanics with his own Dirac Equation that he would have a much easier time of putting it together with Atom Totality. And another issue. Monopoles. Dirac spent a huge amount of his time on monopoles. Most physicists during Dirac and after Dirac are befuddled as to why he spent so much time on monopoles. These lesser scientists were befuddled because they do not understand that a giant of science knows what is important and which these lesser scientists view as exotic or remote. The key to monopoles is that it clears up Maxwell Equations, gravity, and quantum mechanics. So unless you solve monopoles, most of physics will be muddy. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies John Polasek |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
fake physics offerings and who has time to point out their fakery if Dirac had the Atom Totality
John C. Polasek wrote: On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium" wrote: John C. Polasek wrote: (snipped) Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in the total energy equation. He did very little with it. John Polasek You meant to say "sea of positrons". No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example. An electron, when removed, left a "hole". Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger and Dirac Equations, Energy formulas. Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons, because he did not have a Atom Totality theory. As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your basis theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics. Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall also. Anyway, you are not doing science but building scaffolds in mid air and without a basis-theory (Big Bang). You see something in physics-- Dirac Sea and hole and you raise a complaint and then you expect others to say "oh, wow, this is something" when in fact it is nothing but a complaint. Yours is like the guy who sees the edifice of physics whether Big Bang, whether Atom Totality, comes to a road of that edifice structure and starts to dig out the road and destroy the road at that site. This is not a theory building of physics, nor is it a hypothesis of physics, but a complaint and destruction of a part of a old network of physics. So, you have nothing. Start over and start with some base theory. If you do not like Atom Totality, at least start with Big Bang and then show how "vacuum" or "pair-wise" has anything to do with Big Bang and changes thereof. I do not have time to explain to every fakery offering what is wrong with it. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Space = Dirac Sea of Positrons = monopole = force of gravity; may explain why a free neutron decay is 15 minutes; Experiment #3, the force of gravity does not exist in the nucleus or inside the neutron
I may have an excellent analogy to Dirac Sea of Positrons = Monopole.
The analogy may be that of the neutron which has inside itself the proton, electron and antineutrino. Now can a proton be so close and next door to a electron confined into the small space of the neutron? Similarly, we can ask how can a electron of ordinary matter be resting in a Space that consists of a Sea of Positrons and not annihilate one another? So in other words, I have an analogy to work with. And we know that a free neutron is stable for about 15 minutes. Could it be that when a neutron is inside a nucleus of an atom, there is no Sea of Positrons there. There is no force of gravity there because there is no sea of positrons. But when a neutron steps outside the nucleus, it is confronted by the vast sea of positrons. This vast sea destabilizes the electron and proton inside the nucleus. This destabilization thus causes the free neutron to decay into its internal parts. I am guessing that physics at this moment never had an explanation of why 15 minutes for the free neutron to decay. I am guessing the answer lies in the fact that SPACE itself is the sea of positrons and the cause of free neutron instability. Now in a few earlier posts I said the nuclear region of an atom would not have a force of gravity because the Sea of Positrons do not extend into the nucleus of an atom. I do not know of the credibility of that assertion. It maybe wrong. Trouble is that gravity is so weak of a force that it would be an ultra senstive experiment. Or, maybe not. Maybe since a neutron has an internal part of proton and electron and because they are so close to one another inside the neutron, that if gravity existed there, it would be enormous since the close proximity. So maybe there is a simple experimental testing for which the answer can be found that inside an atomic nucleus there is no force of gravity because the Dirac Sea of Positrons does not exist inside the Nucleus or inside a Neutron. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
connecting StrongNuclear Force with Force of Gravity-- neutron compared to Space = sea of positrons
a_plutonium wrote: I may have an excellent analogy to Dirac Sea of Positrons = Monopole. The analogy may be that of the neutron which has inside itself the proton, electron and antineutrino. Now can a proton be so close and next door to a electron confined into the small space of the neutron? When I have a question about gravity, I can easily turn to the StrongNuclear Force to help solve, and vice versa. StrongNuclear is all about protons and nuclear-electrons existing inside a neutron, which when it enters the nuclear region of an atom, the nuclear-electron spills out and runs around holding all the protons together as a sort of super-coulomb force. Gravity works much the same, only it is a ultra-weak-coulomb force and in fact the most weakest form of coulomb. Gravity, akin to StrongNuclear, is a magnetic attraction of positive to negative charge (and the a Coulomb force). Gravity is where the positive charge of the sea-of-positrons is attracted to the negative charge of all mass and matter (which is all electron mass of the Atom Totality). So we can work out how positron charge of Space in the region of the Sun is magnetically attracted to the mass of the Sun and this calculation should agree with the Newton law of gravity and General Relativity that mass bends space. Wherein the "bending of space" is really the magnetic pull of positrons by electrons. In the StrongNuclear Force, the concept of space is rather lacking or missing. There is a concept of Space in the nuclear region in that electrons inside neutrons do not have a space and that is why I call them nuclear-electrons. These special electrons have given up their Space in order to consolidate all their energy into magnetic attraction to hold all the protons in the nucleus together. So in StrongNuclear force, Space is missing because it is converted into electron magnetic attraction. In Gravity, Space is on par with the mass and matter in the Cosmos where Space is a Sea of Positrons. So for total observable mass of the Cosmos has an equal amount of energy in the form of Positron Space. So in a sense, what holds together the Nucleus of any atom is the nuclear-electrons attracted to the protons. What holds together the electrons of any atom outside the nucleus is the Positron Space that exists side by side with the electrons in orbit. Electrons when they meet other electrons repel one another. So how do we get gravity in an Atom Totality or how do we keep electrons in an atom from repelling one another? The answer is that Positron Space holds electrons together as they orbit around the nucleus of an atom, plus the other major contributor that holds the electrons around the nucleus of the Protonic Coulomb Force. So for the StrongNuclear Force there is only one binding force energy derived from nuclear-electrons. For Gravity there are two binding force energy (1) protons holding electrons (2) the Positron Space where electrons orbit have a force of attraction between one another. So Newton's law of gravity as well as General Relativity give a force of attraction of the mass of the Sun. But this same number can be worked out from considering the Space around the Sun as a Sea of Positrons magnetically attracting the total mass of the Sun. Or another calculation of the GR dictum "mass bends space" can be derived as magnetic lines of force of Positron Space around the mass of the Sun. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
fake physics offerings and who has time to point out their fakery if Dirac had the Atom Totality
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote: John C. Polasek wrote: On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium" wrote: John C. Polasek wrote: (snipped) Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in the total energy equation. He did very little with it. John Polasek You meant to say "sea of positrons". No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example. An electron, when removed, left a "hole". Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger and Dirac Equations, Energy formulas. We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next to the radical, decided to do something about it. I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have 8.8uuF/meter and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted. Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons, because he did not have a Atom Totality theory. As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your basis theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics. Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall also. You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups. Pick one and tell what's wrong with it. My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that; it's in the book. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies John Polasek |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory | Br Dan Izzo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 31st 04 02:35 AM |