[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 21, Issue 9

[James Rose]

 Carl,

Thanks for your gentle (and funny) chidings, and the interesting LaGrange points 'congregation' events description that are relevant.
"Complex numbers" I don't see as a problem, since complex components, as I remember, are treated as another orthogonal 'dimension' when graphed.   I don't see any inconsistency or undefined dimension relations [or complex factors to be treated as 'non-dimensional']. 

Re gravity and the LaGrange points .. I totally agree with you.  Absolutely related.   Mathematics and physics models - eg - all the conventional imagery of spacetime relativity as deformed elastic dimpled sheets (gravity 'wells' around masses) are misleading, stupid and absurd, according to the clean math equations as given by Newton -&- Einstein.  It was the only way to try and graphically show curvature of light paths through the 'distorted' spacetime of masses.  But think about it carefully.  A gravity-well dimple is a distortion in the z-dimension, out of the x,y plane.   I would be delighted if -anyone- can point to any gravity formula factors that go out of the x,y plane. (!)   None do.  Gravitic curvature happens in TWO dimensions only .. but -that- image has never been drawn or pictured.
Where I am going with those remarks, is that the same holds true for LaGrange points.  They exist in 2 dimensions not 3.  Now how can we identify such curvatures or fixed-loci .. using simpler relations concepts?   A modified understanding of 'dimensions' is what I propose.
How? Why?   Well for starters, It began to occur to me when I was watch some Tokomak runs in 1965 at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.  It was my first exposure to the equipment involve with the experimentation.  Very large, very impressive .. all the energy and -massive- quantities of electron volts required to magnetically bottle, control, and contain ... for the -briefest- amount of time .. what simple few electrons do EASILY with comparatively -little- amount of electron volts.  Strange.  Very strange.  The universe accomplishes atoms formation (plasma confinement) naturally and easily ... everywhere ... versus the energy and conditions bring to bear to try and accomplish the same thing.
The difference was glaring to me and it dawned on me that maybe some other important factor is involved .. which the universe embodies and uses, and which human intellect hadn't yet recognized as important, or present.  Knowing that particle-pairs have a mathematical correspondence; knowing that atoms and waves exist in 3d~4d 'spaces' (by certain simple models) .. I posed myself a conjecture:  Maybe something else is involved that -balances- nuclear plasmas with the electron(s) forms and collectives?   Something 'dimensional' .. whatever that might be (it was a starting question insight for me back then, not a developed model).  So I started exploring the masses ratio of proton to electron (simplest atom case) .. approx 1836:1.      After a few days, I found something interesting and close .. with a possible association to phasespace [where phasespace is appreciated as 3 momentum and 3 loci values  ; aka SIX dimensions (if a person is to be mathematically consistent in definition applications)].      1836 is interestingly close to 6(pi)^5 ; "six times pi to the fifth".
Now, I had already started exploring the notion of exponent location values being representative of the continuum numberline .. that I mentioned in a previous post.   For example, under my hypothesis, the sample equations,  f(x) =  15 + 3x + (pi)x^2 + 109x^3 + x^4 ,  is unconventionally understood as an equation in 4 dimensions.  ['15' being a non-dimensional scalar value].
To apply my hypothesis of "everything in math is (really) dimensional", the function is amendedly correctedly written:
f(x) =  15x^0 + 3x^1 + (pi)x^2 + 109x^3 + x^4.       There are FIVE dimensional factors written, x^0, being the necessary foundational dimension involved.      Using that contention, 6(pi)^5, is a value in SIX dimensions .. which fits with phasespace interpretation.
I haven't calculated other atoms Nuclear::electron cloud ratios, but the hydrogen atom proton::electron ratio suggests that something -dimensional- is necessarily "balanced", that holds atoms together.  Naturally and easily via the dimensional architecture of the universe, of phasespacetime.
Back to gravity .. as 2 dimensional phenomena.    I don't understand anyone's complaints to the Einstein proposition that gravity is similar to acceleration events.    The accuracy is right there in his fundamental simplified equation "E=mc^2".  The problem is that neither Einstein, nor anyone after him, had the courage to explore the -meaning- of:  exponents as dimensions.  :-)
Acceleration is (time x time).  t x t.   aka  t^2.    Right from the get go, Einstein had written that gravity is the resultant felt force of TWO -time dimensions- ... interacting:  c^2.     Apparently it has been difficult enough to grasp the notion that 'time' is a dimension, to take that next extra step that time could be architected as more than 'one'.  [not just forward time and reverse time; but real orthogonal separate values].
Yes, yes, yes.  I am conflating several relations here.  mass~energy equivalence as a relation of two time dimensions squared ; with a gravity field being the result of two time dimensions squared.   They are related .. which is why masses deform phasespacetime, and, phasespacetime co-affects masses.
Now back to the misleading image of spacetime as an elastic deformed domain, in a third z-orthogonal direction.  The gravity field is more like a cross section of a magnetic field around a bar magnet:    Field lines are closer in certain locations and spread apart in others.  In other words:  intensity densities are the correct image.   Which, can accurately be interpreted as density gradients.   Differential action potentials - across domains.      The great thing is that those GRADIENTS ... at next higher teirs of complexity and matter~energy forms (volumetric measures and densities in contained defined spaces ... which exhibit changes over time that the industrial revolution scientists understood as pressure/temperature/volume .. and then identified work potential and work accomplished .. aka actions enactable .. as the mysterious labels factor 'entropy') ... that, in my refreshed coordination of all those existential parameters ... "entropy" is a fundamental phenomena of changes over~across fields densities.  Thermodynamics is only one higher-order example of "entropy".   Unfortunately, our uber-engineering oriented society and scientists are fixed on thermodynamics as the only quality of entropy.  Instead of dissecting the underlying relations ...  it tries to impose thermodynamics where it doesn't belong.  Gradients of all different sorts and states are 'entropy'.
Distribution differences.    (same thing)   relocation changes  (same thing).  WHICH ...  :-)  ... is why Shannon and Weaver and von Neumann were accurate to ascribe entropy as a factor quality in 'Information Theory'.
And, to 'pile on' with another interpretation that no one talks about or identifies:   CALCULUS ... based on the ability to recognize partitioning cuts (that reduce in size, and concurrently, quantity wise move towards infinity) .. what else is the capacity of a signal recognition system???? ... except the ability to be fine-tuned enough to -recognize- a signal!     Calculus was really the FIRST EXPLICIT "information theory" even though that label was never used.  Shannon's calculus based statistical based "information theory" is the SECOND information theory .. an IMPLICIT one that deals with recognition, and interpretation and noise.  For Leibnitz and Newton, 'noise' and non-data were not resident in defining the essential math relations in partitioning and infinities.
Okay.  I'm sure I just inundated everyone with information overload.   Ready over here ... to get any challenges, or questions.    :-).
JamesDec 9, 2018





=======

    On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 4:36:44 AM PST, cj at mb-soft.com <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:  
 
  To James Rose, You have interesting perspectives.  But  I notice something missing.  When I was getting my Degree in Physics from the University of Chicago (long ago), nearly all discussions were based on "complex numbers".  Sure, we talked about x, y, and z as "dimensions" but all of the more interesting discussions involved (calculations) that had many complex components in them.   An interesting example I remember involves a "gravitational complex factor" which causes our Earth to have its own quirky asteroid IN OUR ORBIT, roughly 97 million miles ahead of us at our L4 Lagrange Point.  Few people try to calculate WHY it is there.  Actually, it is in a "cloud of dust" where the component pieces circulate around each other in interesting three-dimension all Lissajous paths.  (Just trying to understand those "kidney-shaped orbits" with just x, y, and z does not work.)   I have no doubt that "understanding gravitation" is not remotely possible until you first understand the L4 and L5 LaGrange interactions.  Some of my fellow Physicists believe that Jupiter has more than a million asteroids in its L4 and L5 locations, more than all the rest of the asteroids combined.   So, some of your insights have some mathematical issues, which require the "square root  of negative one" to correctly do the math. Oh, some of my fellow Physicists are intrigued by the idea of "building a hotel" on our asteroid (permanently 97 million miles away) as a profit-making tourist destination. Carl Johnson _______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181209/d22c3470/attachment.html>