Photons, Magnetons and Gravitons and Why You Need NOt Think about Quantum Physics

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Douglas Eagleson - 30 Apr 2008 14:27 GMT

A very importent concept in physics is the exact right handedness of
magnetons. An electric field appears associatable with a materials
ferro-center quanta.

I extend solid state theory to the entire kenetic.

A magneton as a force quanta of only magnetic centers appear distinct
from photons an electron's force quanta.

In three short paragraphs I have outlined a theory of force. A
consistent theory that demands consistencey of force definition.
Magnetons truely exist or there would be NO magnetic field. Demand
consistency.

A right handedness as a reality means do all forces display this
characteristic? Does a graviton have handedness?

What MUST be understood was a quanta in a true material appear to be
cause to exist by the electron field. Photons are held to cause ferro-
centers to exist.

So a cause to magneton appears associatable with quanta of charge.
Asked agian, can photons cause mass? Yes a conversion appears
possible. So matter conversion can be held to cause the relation of
handedness. Demand causality in an exact relation.

What parameter of matter can display force, none other than mass. So
infer handedness for the electron pair created in pair production. A
force of gravity between these two particles can be held a handed
rule?

Why do charges appear caused by force itself?

So add the relationship and resovle the theory. A deep thinker can
solve all handedness as a basic outcome of force effect. A ferro-
center becomes aligned by the force of photon.

Begging the question, how does mass align? So anti-particles have
alignment relative to electrons. A re-conversion of the pair back to
photons appears a perfect handedness causality. Self handed
causaility would be a double electron. Can a bare electron cause
another to exist? An exact relationship of force to particle cause
to exist appears.

An electron may cause an electron to exist.

So people do add a simple rule and use the rule in larger theories.

Relation was a physical theory and meta-physical existence of these
relations was held correct. A right-hand causality appear truly
existent.

It may not be easy to relate all causality as such, but it has been
conducted and finalized. A road map to true unification demands
consistency of force existance. Nature is NOT inconsistent. A display
of inconsistency was a person relating old theory to new.

Trying to derive backwards an electromagnetic field from a quantum
field was a backward discovery. Use the handedness relation as a
smaller theory. Do not ever explain old theory as a smaller theory of
the new.

EM theory is a dead old theory. Quantum theory must only answer a
degree of parameter. All observable effect of quantum theory must
agree with the observables of an almost correct old theory.

Using force of EM as an inconsistent force definition in a derivation
as a quanta is a lunatic approach to unification.

Break the relations in to pieces such as handedness as a rule. And
then place them all on index cards, one rule per card.

Once given the card set resolve a function as a theory. It may not be
easy, but people can do things in a meta-physically consistent
fashion. A challenger in unification is systematically decomposing all
previsous theory in to a set of relations only.

In modern science this practice of self consistent theory construction
is hardly avaialbe in schools. All professors debate meta-physics and
the required level of intelligent detail is perfact applied meta-
physics.

DO not debate meta-physics, learn it. A single solution is now
availabe to all questions of the thinker. Fallacy in logic has ended
by recognizing third and fourth and levels of order to relations.
Abstract order as nth order degree of logical state is a real solved
school. We can apply meta-physical perfection.

nth order school will run down an erratic thinker. Debate never again
a cause to fallacy in logic. If you have trouble concieving a debate
over fallacy in logic, then lay down your personal trial and do not
approach the question of unification.

An exact nth order applied usage is required as a thinker. Several
school of ordered logic exist. Solve the school dilemmas and appear to
be a true philosopher. Or do not approach unification. Let others
approach the dilemmas of relationship in physics.

Stop wondering of quantum physics. Let a school attack the nature and
try to proceed to a realm of applied thought more suitable to your
ability. A good professsor as a person should apply only a theory. If
sophisticated professors are warned to not search for unification who
are you as a common inventive thinker.

Stop. And let your life move to a new topic.

Reply to this Message

Darwin123 - 30 Apr 2008 16:13 GMT

On Apr 30, 9:27 am, Douglas Eagleson <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> A very importent concept in physics is the exact right handedness of
> magnetons. An electric field appears associatable with a materials
> ferro-center quanta.
>
> I extend solid state theory to the entire kenetic.

Electric charges in a solid have a preferred frame, which is the
inertial frame of the center of mass of the solid. For instance, the
lattice in a crystal would break the Lorentz invariance of the vacuum.
Although special relativity applies to the entire crystal, the
separate excitations in the solid do not have to obey special
relativity. The act of defining an excitation separate from the
crystal implies a certain approximation. Yes, the excitations can be
defined in such a way as to be Lorentz invariant but this involves
separating out the motion of the crystal as a whole.
In the case of ferromagnetic materials, this is especially
obvious. Ferroelectric materials are not invariant to time reversal on
a macroscopic scale. They exhibit hysteresis. Since time reversal is
part of Lorentz invariance, one can not use special relativity for
defining excitations specific to ferromagnetic materials. Thus, you
can not extrapolate models for ferromagnetic materials to the vacuum.
One can extrapolate theories applicable to the vacuum to ferromagnetic
materials, but only by statistical mechanic methods.

> A magneton as a force quanta of only magnetic centers appear distinct
> from photons an electron's force quanta.
>
> In three short paragraphs I have outlined a theory of force. A
> consistent theory that demands consistencey of force definition.
> Magnetons truely exist or there would be NO magnetic field.

If there was such a thing as a magneton, distinct from a photon,
then there would be no duality of the electromagnetic field. By
duality, I mean that the magnetic field and the electric field are
interchangeable in Maxwell's equations. Specifically, Maxwell's
equations are Lorentz invariant. Observers in different inertial
frames see different proportions of electric and magnetic fields at a
given point of space and time. In order for this to be true, observers
in different inertial frames would have to see a magnetron as a photon
and vica versa. Otherwise, Maxwell's equation wouldn't even be a good
approximation.

> Demand
> consistency.

You first.

> A right handedness as a reality means do all forces display this
> characteristic? Does a graviton have handedness?

In the way a photon has handedness. A graviton has an integral
spin. It moves at the speed of light just like a photon. The spin is
parallel to the motion. So right handed and left handed spin
correspond to the handedness of a graviton. This one can extrapolate
from solid state theory, since spin is not specific to the state of
the solid.

> What MUST be understood was a quanta in a true material appear to be
> cause to exist by the electron field. Photons are held to cause ferro-
> centers to exist.

However, a ferro-center also contain nucleii. You don't get an
iron magnet without iron nucleii. There are forces that keep the
nucleii together that are not electromagnetic. Therefore, that
interferes with extrapolating the electromagnetic field to the vacuum.
The existence of nucleii breaks some of the symmetries embedded in
Maxwell's equations. So you can't really extrapolate everything from
the solid state. Some things yes. But tread carefully.

> So a cause to magneton appears associatable with quanta of charge.
> Asked agian, can photons cause mass?

Read "The Theory of Electrons" by H. A. Lorentz. There are more up
to date references, but his explanation is my favorite. The
interaction of a charge with its own electromagnetic field adds
inertial mass to a particle.

>Yes a conversion appears
> possible. So matter conversion can be held to cause the relation of
> handedness. Demand causality in an exact relation.

Why demand? Just solve the problem.

> What parameter of matter can display force, none other than mass.

Parameters can't display anything. What are you talking about?

So

> infer handedness for the electron pair created in pair production. >A force of gravity between these two particles can be held a handed
> rule?

???

> Why do charges appear caused by force itself?

The interaction of a charge with its own fields create mass. The
exact details are not known. If you have an idea, write it down more
coherently and submit the article.

> So add the relationship and resovle the theory. A deep thinker can
> solve all handedness as a basic outcome of force effect.

Now finding a deep thinker is a hard problem!

Reply to this Message

Douglas Eagleson - 30 Apr 2008 17:04 GMT

> On Apr 30, 9:27 am, Douglas Eagleson <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:> A very importent concept in physics is the exact right handedness of
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> One can extrapolate theories applicable to the vacuum to ferromagnetic
> materials, but only by statistical mechanic methods.

A good observation is the relativistic symmetry of the system. I
propose an apparent system in violation of time symmetric effect. It
is importent only in the realm of modern quantum theory. I use a
nuclear theory called a symmetric force effect. A matter as the cause
to field appears nowhere.

I like to think of myself as a front runner in modern advanced
theory. Just be reminded I used to store the NIST neutron standard in
my own personal storage locker. It is part of your issue with me.

Does liquid nuclear class exist? And a definitive answer was always to
think about the neutron standard. What appears caused by the fluence
standard?

> > A magneton as a force quanta of only magnetic centers appear distinct
> > from photons an electron's force quanta.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> and vica versa. Otherwise, Maxwell's equation wouldn't even be a good
> approximation.

A test question appears and the Lorentz function either causes a field
or not.
And the open larger neutron question answers.

> > Demand
> > consistency.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> from solid state theory, since spin is not specific to the state of
> the solid.

Handedness was defined. And I agree with the spin as a relative hand.

> > What MUST be understood was a quanta in a true material appear to be
> > cause to exist by the electron field. Photons are held to cause ferro-
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Maxwell's equations. So you can't really extrapolate everything from
> the solid state. Some things yes. But tread carefully.

I disagree entirely. No necessary force was required to bind a ferro-
center.

> > So a cause to magneton appears associatable with quanta of charge.
> > Asked agian, can photons cause mass?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> interaction of a charge with its own electromagnetic field adds
> inertial mass to a particle.

Heisenberg's question was: "Does an electron even have a magnetic
field?"

Does "the ferro-center" actually exist in the electron or does the
electric field create ferro-centers to cause magnetic effect? And the
answer is obvious. No magnetic field exists for a bare non-interacting
electron. Observation means interaction, btw.

> >Yes a conversion appears
> > possible. So matter conversion can be held to cause the relation of
> > handedness. Demand causality in an exact relation.
>
> Why demand? Just solve the problem.

It was solved.

> > What parameter of matter can display force, none other than mass.
>
> Parameters can't display anything. What are you talking about?

A parameter is a variable of physics. A valid theory need not derive
the older theory.

> So> infer handedness for the electron pair created in pair production. >A force of gravity between these two particles can be held a handed
> > rule?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Now finding a deep thinker is a hard problem!

Wrong. That is a modern theory class assumption. Field does not HAVE
TO cause a force of existance of matter. Reverse this conception.
The neutron was a old security system for nucelar weapon safety
reasons it was miscalibrated. A defect as binding energy existance was
caused artificially. Do the binding fluence without calibration to the
NIST neutron and you will see no binding energy for neutrons.

So we stand on different for-fronts of advanced theory.

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / April 2008

Photons, Magnetons and Gravitons and Why You Need NOt Think about Quantum Physics