Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Review?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:31 pm

.
Jared. My basic script, so far. I think it needs to be compressed and simplified as much as possible, though.
Airman. Hi Jared. A script? Do you mean code script? Or are you going to add a sound track describing the scene? How long do you need to speak? Who is your intended audience?
 
I routinely cite, or list all the pertinent charge field ideas before answering a question. I’m sure the viewer finds it tedious, I try to keep a positive attitude and continue. Describing things properly is essential for learning. Between you and me, I make plenty of errors.

Here’s my first chop at clearing up your Postulate paragraph, take it or leave it.

Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c.

The vimeo. The yellow particle (ball) has always had a stick through its center that is very distracting. As the yellow balls spins, its stick delivers hits to green balls 1,2 and 4. Could you replace the stick axis with pole markers? Would it be possible add a brief show collision points? Since you ask, the transparent clones are distracting, they aren’t needed.

If Nevyn thinks you may have all but one of the directions and impact points correct, you must be learning.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:06 am

Thanks, Nevyn. I played with these collisions a lot but thought there was something fishy about a couple of them. Both your suggestions make perfect sense, now that I'm looking at it again. I'll fix it and re-upload for further analysis.

I apologize for constantly asking you for clarification, but I feel like it's of the utmost importance to get this right.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:53 am

LongTimeAirman wrote:Here’s my first chop at clearing up your Postulate paragraph, take it or leave it.

Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c.

Perfect. Much better, to the point, and cleaner than my prose.

LongTimeAirman wrote:Airman. Hi Jared. A script? Do you mean code script? Or are you going to add a sound track describing the scene? How long do you need to speak? Who is your intended audience?

No, I mean a written on-screen explanation (somehow!) or at least in the description sections of the Vimeo. You're right, it needs to be short, clean, and very explicit. So I really need to compress and clean things up for the layfolk.

And yes, pertinent links should definitely be involved. But for an online video I think that should go into the description section?

I'm really trying to make this a nice, clean intro to the charge field. Further videos should go along the same lines.

As for axial markers, I think you're right as well about that. I need to make it obvious the difference between paths and markers and actual "matter", so there's little or no confusion. I'll work on that from an animator's perspective and see what I can come up with.

Thanks, both of you, for your input. This is kind of a group project so I really appreciate all the feedback and patience! Sometimes it feels like I'm stumbling through this but the concepts need to be explored, and need to be presented accurately. Down the road we'll be doing huge simulations with billions of these spinning particles, so if our foundations are wrong then the whole thing goes to shit. I want to avoid that. Avoiding shit is a long-term goal, here. Smile

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Review continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:39 pm

.
Jared wrote. As for axial markers, I think you're right as well about that. I need to make it obvious the difference between paths and markers and actual "matter", so there's little or no confusion. I'll work on that from an animator's perspective and see what I can come up with.

Airman. Making changes and taking criticism isn't easy. The axial sticks and transparent clones served their purpose, now they stand out like training wheels on a bicycle. They are still there if needed.

Axial markers. I don't recall discussion on this subject. My preferred autocad particle diagram is an up or down (forward direction), red or blue, matter or antimatter, hemispheres. Spin is orthogonal to the forward direction as one’s fingers curl in the right-hand rule. Looking down to Earth from the equatorial plane to the Earth we expect to see twice as many photons to anti-photons. In studying individual collisions we may or may not maintain our forward/reverse or up/down directions.

Here’s a suggested edit of you initial theory paragraph.

Theory: The photon can become any larger charged particle through spin stacking. Photons already moving and spinning at c cannot move or spin any faster; energy gained through a collision will induce an end-over-end spin outside the gyroscopic influence of the prior spin, doubling the photon’s radius and mass for each new spin. As the photon stacks spins, its overall motion becomes larger and more recursive, it has become a charged particle. Charged particles recycle the smaller photons it encounters by confining, then generally re-emitting them equatorially away from the charged particle’s top spin direction. When the photon stacks enough spins, 4 or 8 – we don’t know exactly - it becomes an electron. Four more spins and the electron can become a neutron or proton. In this way, all charged particles are built from the fundamental B-photon.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:35 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:When the photon stacks enough spins, 4 or 8 – we don’t know exactly - it becomes an electron.

These parts kinda mess with me. We still haven't reconciled Mathis's various maths on this one, as far as I know. Not with ourselves or with him. I'd really like to get this out of the way but it's a barrier until we do. Nevyn's the only one close, it seems like. I'd defer to him, but until we get a pretty powerful simulation up to speed (my deficit, nobody else's) to see how these things could act it's a fuzzy area.

How much recursion is necessary to trap and recycle charge photons?

I'm hitting calculation barriers here, even with the most powerful software around and tons of CPU and GPU cores to toss at the issue.

And at the end of the day, it's crap in, crap out. Simulations are only as good as their programming. It's not proof of anything, but could be supporting evidence in many ways. I'm mostly just trying to diagram these stacked spins so we can see how this recursion would actually work and look. So this entire thread is basically me struggling to get to (and past) the third stacked spin.

It's daunting. Sometimes it's too complex for my mind to deal with, especially compounded with trying to make Maya's mind deal with it too. Sometimes I just "give up" for a few days or weeks, to let myself regroup and step back. And sometimes I just need the feedback you folks give me to power me back up again, go at the problem another way.

But I feel like progress is being made, slowly but surely! I'm working on making this short video neat, clean, and very accessible to the layman. And all these critiques and analyses you guys give me is just phenomenal, very appreciated.

It'll get there. I've got some animator buddies over on CGTalk helping me out with techniques and methodologies too, so hopefully I'll have some "good shit" to share with you guys shortly.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:59 am

Here's another revised, reworked attempt at illustrating the theory. I've replaced most of the ornaments outright in favor of transparent arrows and vector-markers, and a simple thin red ring around our B-photon to show its initial rotational axis. It's the same spins we've been looking at, so the spin dynamics should be proper. I've added some impact "rings" as well, to show the collisions a little better. But these may not be terribly helpful?



https://vimeo.com/225210003

Is this less confusing, or more? Sans any dialogue, does it seem obvious that the particle is spinning up after each collision? Do the new ornaments work better or worse? The dialogue should be an accessory. Anyone watching should be able to see what's going on, even if they don't understand it outright.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Paint Your Particles

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:01 pm

.
Yellow, red and green photons. I see a thin red equatorial line about the yellow photon.

Solid color spheres prevent the viewer from seeing the particle spins. Instead, you indicate particle motions with spin ribbons, spinning arrows, expanding impact circles and center markers for new end-over-end spins – all outside the colored spheres. I must admit, the motions displayed are fascinating, if not hypnotic. They actually draw attention away from the recursive motions of the particles under study.

Last time I requested brief (short duration) collision marks, I was thinking of spots drawn on the two colliding surfaces and not as an expanding circle in space. The first collision – expanding red circle – appears orthogonal to the red sphere’s forward motion along – say – the x-axis. That cannot be correct, the red particle is traveling in the x direction just below the x axis. The line of collision between the two spheres must have a z component which doesn’t appear to be present in the expanding collision circle. All the collision circles seem to be in single x, y, or z directions, none are normal to the collisions they are intended to highlight. I don't think they make things clearer.

I strongly believe surface markers will enable a much better interpretation of the action. Please differentiate the photon surfaces. With visible photon motions, external markers will be less essential. We should at least be able to distinguish the pole locations, with dots, circles or crosses. Last time I suggested red or blue hemispheres - a minimum of surface differentiation. For example, your horizontally spin oriented yellow particle would blue hemisphere up, red hemisphere down. I would further suggest dividing each hemisphere into quarters, blue and white quadrants above, red and white below. Or, similarly, consider marking those three great circles (equator and two orthogonal circles intersecting at both poles) in clear lines on the sphere’s surface.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Nevyn on Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:16 pm

I agree that the ribbons are cool to watch, but distracting. I watched the entire video and it was only once I came back to this forum that I remembered that there were collisions.

A simple approach I have used (SpinSim) for markers is to create 2 spheres per BPhoton. One is the solid color you want it to be and the other is only rendered in wireframe. You may need to make the wireframe sphere slightly larger than the solid sphere. Otherwise parts of the wireframe disappear.

My other approach, which I think looks really cool, is what I have done in my particle simulator in OpenGL. I believe I have put videos of it here but not sure where (I was demonstrating Octree Indexes). It is a sphere implemented as an Icosahedron. I then create colored sections (red, green and blue) by setting the color per vertex and this creates a strip per color with the same color on opposite sides. That requires code to set up for me, not sure if it would be feasible in Maya. I'm sure it can be done but not sure how hard it would be. Icosahedrons only contain 20 vertices and this is not enough for a smooth sphere so I have to create new vertices between the existing ones until I reach a point where it is smooth. The colors are smoothly interpolated between old and new vertices.

An easier approach is to just apply a texture to the sphere. The texture needs some sort of pattern or irregularity. There are plenty of rock textures around the need that work well. Have a look at my Expansion apps for an example of this.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:11 pm

These are all great ideas, thanks again to you both. I think I'll go with wireframes and per-vertex colors overlaid onto the solid, smooth sphere as it will be really easy to implement in Maya. Wireframe is the default state, and even the smooth-shaded spheres are just a SubD surface at rendertime. I literally just click "Wireframe on Shaded" and that's done. Plus since they pinch at the poles already (like a wrapped globe), the poles should be readily apparent.



How do the motions look, otherwise? I tried hard to correct those impacts, but perhaps the expanding rings are too distracting. I could easily pop a red dot or locator at those collisions though so I'm gonna try that instead.

Maybe I let the Z1 spin play through a few times then fade in those arrows later? I mean, if they help at all in describing the motions?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Nevyn on Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:59 am

It is hard to tell how the actual collisions are without seeing the circles. The Y spin collision (green) looks strange to me but I can't figure out exactly what it is. At first I thought it was hitting at the wrong time. Then I thought it was colliding at the right time but not spinning the correct way from that collision. Then I thought it might be the X spin affecting the new Y spin that causes it to move in a weird direction. I don't know.

Could you make the arrows longer so that they create the circle of the former videos? This allows the arrow to spin around and show direction while still having the complete circle to see how it relates to the other spin levels.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:01 pm

Nevyn wrote:Could you make the arrows longer so that they create the circle of the former videos?

Definitely. I'll play with that.

Meanwhile, here's the raw, ornament-free video with the wireframe overlays. Same motions, just no external stuff:

https://vimeo.com/225368694

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:30 pm

.
Jared, I’ve viewed your stripped down version many times. I can’t say the motions are correct or not. I think the wire frame helps, it certainly conveys the recursive motion all by itself.

The next thing I would request is to include a track of the particle’s path, this would allow a direct comparison with Nevyn’s Spin Simulator.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:53 pm

Yes, a motion trail path of some sort is definitely in order.

But I haven't changed my motions themselves since Nevyn and Miles both concurred on whichever revision it was, awhile back. I've only been applying the collision objects (which aren't actually colliding at all, just key-framed to appear that way) and the various trails and such atop that grouped hierarchy that "worked".

This isn't to say the motions are perfect, but they should be close down to a few decimal places. And I'm always open to correction. I do lose a bit of precision translating to 30fps in the math, since there are no "half-frames" to work with. So the math is a little sloppier than it could be, but hopefully we're making some progress.

Again, I'm not trying to replace any of Nevyn's tools, but make something a layperson might be able to understand quickly. Miles asked me to work on this further awhile back, so I think he wants to link it in on some of his papers - but it's gotta be RIGHT. And legible! Which is what I struggle with.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:54 am

Well, after a bit of downtime focusing on Mathis's genealogies and political papers, I'm back at my project with renewed vigor. I've been watching a lot of other, similar animations (not regarding Mathisian physics) to see how others successfully demonstrate and illustrate such things, as a matter of technical direction and visual art. So I'll be working on and refining my animations, with clearer labels and better visualizations, as well as using a buddy's animation script to tighten my math down well below the level of framerate (30fps, here) to reduce error margins if not eliminate them.

Meanwhile, I took LTA's suggestions and have been updating the script. Some of this will be overlayed onto the animation, some will just be in the description on Vimeo or whatever. Not sure about that yet, but here's my (hopefully) more refined script.

Please tear it apart if you see any inconsistencies, folks?

"Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c. As the photon collides with another particle, it transmits its velocity through linear motion as well as its spin motion. Consider that light could have no energy without having mass: 0*c² would still be zero, so the photon must have some (tiny) mass. Our eyes see photon impacts, not electrons or protons. The photoelectric effect alone proves this, but also phototropism and photosynthesis in plants.

Hypothesis: The photon as the fundamental quanta becomes all larger particles through stacked spins. As particular collisions occur, a photon can be induced into an end-over spin outside the gyroscopic influence of the prior spin. This end-over spin effectively doubles the photon's radius each time a new spin is induced. As the photon stacks enough spins, its complex motion becomes more and more recursive, confining other smaller less-spun photons it encounters and redirecting them, recycling the ambient field of other photons. It is emitting charge. If the photon stacks enough spins, gaining radius each time, it becomes what we know as an electron. Several more spins and it becomes a neutron or proton. In this way, all particles are built fundamentally from the photon.

Demonstration: The yellow sphere represents our photon. We will give it a radius of 1 for the sake of easy, relative math. We will also give it an axial spin to visualize how it moves. We have a spinning photon, which has polarity. It is spinning one way and not the other (clockwise or counter, the direction doesn't matter here) for example, and its tangential (spin) velocity will be greater at its equator than at its poles. It may collide with many other photons or larger particles on its journey through space, and most of those collisions will simply refract or redirect its path, but some collisions will affect its motion in more complex ways. Since this is an axial spin only, we will call it the A1 spin.

Here we have an incoming photon (marked as red) striking our original at a certain angle, causing the photon to "tumble" in the X-axis. Since it's already going c linearly and spinning at c, the collision energy is most easily expressed or transferred at the opposite pole - flipping the photon end-over-end. It can't add any more energy in those other directions, so it tumbles. This is the first stacked spin - we will call it the X1 spin.

Since it is now traveling a longer distance, it takes a bit longer to move through the larger spin. It now has a radius of 2, relative to our initial state. This doubling of the radius also doubles its mass - it's taking up twice the volume as before in its motion, over a given timespan. Its energy has increased, and it is now more likely to collide with other photons simply because its path takes up a larger volume.

Let's add another spin. An incoming photon (green) strikes our X1 spin photon along that X axis, so our photon can't exchange this velocity except to tumble on its Y axis, just outside the influence of our previous X1 spin. This is the second stacked spin, or Y1 spin.

This doubles the radius again, giving us a relative radius of 4. A photon with two stacked spins is 4 times as large as a photon with only its axial spin.

Let's add yet another spin. The incoming (blue) photon strikes our Y1 spin photon, tumbling it into the Z1 spin. Each new stacked spin must be a tumble, outside the gyroscopic influence of our previous spin, orthogonal to the main vector: the right-hand rule.

Now we have doubled our radius yet again. A Z1-spin photon is 8x the size of a lone, axial-spinning photon. This is the level of the infrared photon, which experiment has shown is the most common state. It's a stable average photon, and most of the ambient charge field is in the infrared spectrum. Heat is generally a measure of infrared photon density in a given volume; though other photon spin-configurations will contribute to heat, the average spin-state is around the Z1 level.

Theory: Further stacked spins double the radius each time, and as the photon reaches the electron's size (literally becoming an electron), its motion and inertia becomes recursive enough to "scoop" up other incoming photons as they bounce through its path. This is "charge recycling". The electron becomes a tiny fan or engine, powered by the charge field, as it takes in and re-emits photons. This is the mechanical definition of charge in action. The electron is a charged particle.

Stack a few more spins via further collisions, and we have the proton. If the last spins are reversed, it becomes the neutron. In this way, the photon is the fundamental quantum particle that we know of; all larger particles are built in this fashion, from stacking additional spins via certain specific collisions."

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

B-Photon Motions

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:16 pm

.
Jared, I’ll be happy to give you a critical review. First, I’ll rant a bit. I’ve had my head bit off here more than once.

With respect to the charged particle, in both Spin Sim and Quantum Particle Spin we can only see the motion of the particle’s B-photon. All new end-over-end spins are sequential additions to the B-photon’s complex motion. A large charged particle appears as a recursive series of orthogonal gyrations of the B-photon. The particle’s mass apparently equals the B-photon mass plus each component end-over-end motion. The B-photon is shown following the combined motions of all the sub-spins. There is no particle “surface”, the gyrating B-photon will define the particle’s manifold surface over time.

I believe Miles says collisions affect just the particles’ outer spin, although there are some secondary spin effects. This implies that photons colliding with the particle wouldn’t be expected to penetrate the particle’s topmost spin. In both our models the particles’ B-photons are totally exposed. There’s no surface, at any given moment there is only the B-photon’s position and motion within the particle’s volume.

The particle is recycling charge, we haven’t gotten that far yet. How can the charged particle’s essential B-photon maintain its integrity - locked in its fixed complex motion despite collisions with similar motions of the many photon’s recycling within the particle’s volume? Is the surface of the particle defined by recycling photons? If that were the case, how could collision with a recycling surface transfer mc^2 energy? How are collisions defined within the particle?

Our models simulate spin stacking using a B-photon with fixed motions. Of course a B-photon cannot remember motions, it only has forward and tangential velocities of c. All light-speed end-over-end boosts are mass creation events, which double the particle’s radius. We show spin creation, but we do not show a “real” particle with an increased radius and surface. How about, whenever an end-over-end spin is created, real tangible mass is also created. I don’t know, perhaps the previous topspin becomes tangible mass. Prior internal surfaces should still exist.

Please don’t take any of the above as personal criticism. You’ve spoken with Miles and I’m sure that adds to this discussion. You may recall I suggested spin stacking could be like shell growth. There’s got to be either mass creation or some other mechanism we’re missing. Maybe we can come up with something before Nevyn finds out.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Nevyn on Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:39 pm

Too late. I've already proposed that all mass is just velocity and that is why a new spin level increases mass. It isn't the size so much as the motion. Everything is motion (and something to move). Of course, size does play a part once it reaches a certain radius, just through the number of collisions, but I think I would prefer to call that an expression of mass, rather than mass itself.

However, you have some time to figure out something else. I have been designing a hi-fi amplifier system (actually, it has surpassed that already) and have started the procurement process (PCB's are being built as we speak) and am about to start the building phase (this is an expensive and time consuming hobby). So I imagine it will still be some time before I feel the desire to step back into physics again.

Good luck. I look forward to the challenge.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:16 pm

I completely agree with Nevyn's postulate about mass. Nevyn, your paper on Spin Velocity is of course part of the foundation for my presentation, mine which is probably only even remotely important to the three of us here (hah!) but I just feel obligated to keep at it. Sometimes I doubt if I can accomplish what I want to do with this but then I watch other CGI physics vids, or Maya tutorials on animation or particle effects, and I think I can pull this off given enough rigor and effort. So I plod on... Thanks for joining me in the tedium, even from afar, my friends.

And I can't remember if it was the same paper or threads around here (which I think I'm going to archive entirely, just in case something goes wrong with the site) in which Nevyn discussed these fundamentals of mass, velocity, and acceleration further. Any acceleration must be implied, as they are just changes in velocity propelled by some collision event or other. It struck me very well and soundly. I'm operating under the ideas of those papers or essays or posts, which is another thing Nevyn brings to the table on top of all the visual, wonderful stuff. Thank you, even if we don't see you much for awhile, you're very appreciated.


Last edited by Jared Magneson on Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:50 pm

LongTimeAirman wrote: First, I’ll rant a bit. I’ve had my head bit off here more than once.

Rant onward and freely. I hope I've not ever bitten anyone's head off here, and that I'm not the cause of your statement. I found your rant to be quite "on point", that is to say it makes sense to me and I'll try to give some decent answers.

LTA: How can the charged particle’s essential B-photon maintain its integrity - locked in its fixed complex motion despite collisions with similar motions of the many photon’s recycling within the particle’s volume?

JMM: I think that the core B-photon maintains its integrity chiefly because of its velocity and vector. Most collisions (by far) won't hit the B-photon hard enough or directly enough to overcome its intertia or momentum. To add a stacked spin, for example, requires a  very specific contact point and vector, along with enough energy to cause a new flip (I assume). An A1-spin generic bottom-of-the-barrel photon with only the single axial spin may have enough energy to add a spin to a Z1 guy, but only if the hit is dead-center and at the right time from the right place. There are more than one right time/right place where a new stack may occur, but most incoming collisions will be glancing blows that affect the collider much more than our focus B-photon.  If so, this would also be true of charge-recycling larger particles such as the electron or proton. Our spun-up B-photon acts as a mechanical bully, barreling around with little mind to the charge corral it forms. Protons certainly seem more resillient than electrons, for example.

LTA: Is the surface of the particle defined by recycling photons? If that were the case, how could collision with a recycling surface transfer mc^2 energy? How are collisions defined within the particle?


JMM: It seems to me that "the particle" (proton, for example) is simply the cage-path traced by the complex, ridiculous motion of its core B-photon. It's still moving at c, tangentially, but no longer at c linearly. So we have this little bugger flipping and flopping around with a lot of mass compared to the charge photons it's corralling, but it still leaks a great many of course. It can't be everywhere at once. But it CAN be bouncing charge photons all over the place, and in a path that effectively extends this corral, this path-cage. They'll be spraying all over the place as it churns through the ambient field, so its path is enhanced just as a matter of extension.

A neutron however takes a different path of travel, having those opposing final spin vectors. So perhaps the neutron bounces its charge around another time or two more before it can escape, thus giving the appearance of charge-blocking (relative to the proton). That's why it contributes less charge, because in the ambient field it simply takes the same amount of photons longer to emerge from the neutron than the proton. I may just be parroting or paraphrasing Mathis at this point, but I'm visualizing it much better after trying to simulate it for so long. Hope it's not too tedious.

That also explains how the proton is porous to charge, and the neutron and electron as well. Any incoming ambient or "binding charge" as in a nucleus doesn't see the proton as a surface or manifold "shell" so much as a weird and wacky maze, with multiple ways in and out. With a proton, it will be very rare that the core B-photon and its bouncy entourage will be at the poles, and very common that it will be nearer the equator. But our incoming ambient photon doesn't care what it hits, it just hits stuff and most likely hits the proton's charge emission rather than the spun-up B-photon itself. The mc² energy transfer would be photon-to-photon generally, I imagine.

It's hard to even contemplate but all this is happening so fast, and so many ambient photons pouring through, that perhaps in a proton MOST ambient charge guys only get one bounce and are tossed out. Maybe some churn around recursively, but that could be the chief difference between the proton and neutron. What's the ratio of recursivity? Cool word, I got no answer though.

(*an aside)I haven't come anyhwere near bringing the actual speed of light into my simulations (though I imagine Nevyn's have no problem with that math) because Maya as an animation tool is a spatial environment far, far too small to explore light speed for 90 seconds. Its internal grid is in centimeters, for example, with a UI limit of accuracy only down to the thousandths. (*end blather)

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:59 pm

As a bonus just for showing up guys, here's my latest piece of artwork. Enjoy or despise, but I figured I'd share what I've been up to in a similar time-consuming hobby to Nevyn's amplifier.

"With the Choedan Kal"

(click to see full)

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Nevyn on Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:58 am

I am really stepping away from this idea of charged particles corralling photons inside of themselves. It is a fine idea and I commend Miles for coming up with it, especially given that he was working this all out in his head. I had to write software for myself so that I could see the motions and after years of fine-tuning and working with it, in various forms, I can no longer agree with this kind of charge recycling. I don't find it necessary and I don't find it feasible anymore.

I explain the charge difference between Proton and Neutron by the narrowing of the central hole that forms in larger particles. Effectively, it has more resistance just like a smaller diameter pipe has more resistance than a larger one. It is still the direction of spin levels that determines that, but there is no need for photons to be inside of the particle at any time. Photons just move too fast. There is no way for the Proton/Neutron BPhoton to reach the other side of its path before the photon gets there. The BPhoton has a linear velocity that matches the P/N BPhoton tangential velocity, so they are moving at the same speed, but the P/N BPhoton has to move around a curve to get there. The photon just goes straight to it (the potential 2nd collision point). You have to suggest a slowing of the photon to give the P/N BPhoton time to get there, but there is no evidence of photons slowing down at all.

One problem with my approach is that it does not explain why a Neutron isn't charged like a Proton. That is, it should still have a disc-like charge emission field. It does explain the through-charge being lower, but not the emission field. My current best guess is that the Neutron actually does have an emission field, but it is much less dense than a Proton, or even an Electron. Not sure how it would do that though.

Ok, here's an idea I just came up with. What if I have it backwards? What if the Proton is the particle with the smaller through-charge hole and the Neutron has the larger one? Then the Neutron allows more charge to just flow on through while the Proton collides with it and this is (part of) what creates the emission field. The Neutron would still have some amount of emission field, but not as much as a Proton. The Electron is already smaller, so its central hole is also smaller, allowing it to collide with most charge that flows into this area. Therefore, the Proton and Electron will have more emission charge than the Neutron.

Here's another idea that keeps the Proton with the larger hole. Since the Neutron now has a smaller through-charge hole, it collides with more charge in these areas (north and south poles) and because of this, its emission field is more spherical, where-as the Proton/Electron allow the charge to get deeper inside of itself before collision and this sends it, predominantly, to the equator.

Great! Now I have two mutually exclusive ideas and no way to figure out which is right or even if they are both wrong.

Why do I do this to myself?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Nevyn on Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:18 am

That's really good, Jared. I'm currently reading (actually listening to) the first book in the Spellmonger series by Terry Mancour. That image actually relates to that story a bit. Enough for it to be the first thing I thought when I saw your image. It also relates to the Wheel of Time series a bit too, if anyone has read that. They un-earth huge statues with magical totems towards the end of the series, so it actually fits a bit better than the Spellmonger book.

Since we're sharing artwork, here's one of the circuits I've been working on. It's not as pretty, but it is (hopefully) functional!

Top layer:


Bottom layer:


It is a circuit that connects 2 power amplifiers in 3 different ways: Stereo, Bi-amped and Bridged.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:09 am

@Nevyn: those circuits are awesome to me, as I don't know too much about them but have fiddled a little and of course my motherboards are covered in them, with only suggestions in my head of how they work! Pretty cool stuff, man.

Yep, your second guess was correct. The Choedan Kal are the two huge statues in The Wheel of Time, one female and one male, and they are critical to the story towards the end of book 9, "Winter's Heart". I've done a few pieces for the author, including the cover of his 2009 calendar, which was published just after he died. Also did a book-signing with the finishing author, Brandon Sanderson, and it was really cool to meet him and spend an evening with him, even though I hadn't read his books yet at the time. The final book in the series, "A Memory of Light", is among the greatest books I've ever read. It's also relative to our cause, here, in many ways. But that's just sentiment on my part. Smile

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:12 pm

.
Nevyn, You spoiled the surprise. High fives to your hi-fi project – good luck. I wasn’t trying to drag you back into the mud. Sorry I must quote you for the discussion, please understand I’m not inviting your reply – is that politely awkward enough? Please don’t answer.     

Jared, Choedan Kal is quite nice. Forces concentration, imagination and curiosity. I can almost look into his eyes. Wonderful. And I see new posts since then. I can't keep up with you two.

Nevyn wrote. I've already proposed that all mass is just velocity and that is why a new spin level increases mass. It isn't the size so much as the motion. Everything is motion (and something to move).

Jared wrote. I completely agree with Nevyn's postulate about mass.

Airman. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I agree too, although I’ll quibble and add the missing word - all mass is just angular velocity. We know angular velocity is really an acceleration so mass reduces to an acceleration, some sort of gyroscopic motion.

The very first end-over-end boost the B-photon received turned the B-photon into a larger particle, twice the radius of the B-photon. The end-over-end spinning B-photon is the heart of the particle, it cycles photons through the particle’s core. All subsequent radius doublings occur to the larger particles, not to the B-photon core.  

The complex B-photon motion idea stopped making sense. How can a B-photon remember a ridiculous series of motions constantly threading its way through all the particle’s spins? If it is a single photon it cannot, it can only move forward and spin at c or develop or lose an end-over-end spin. You can point to the B-photon and say, indeed, it traces great spirographs. The B-photon however, cannot move between independent spins, else they wouldn’t be independent.  

The spin wall surfaces of the particle are defined by the recycling photons within. The photons recycling through the particle do sometimes move between spins, but the great majority of photons cycle through the respective volumes in their paths through the particle engine.  

Jared, you guys have invested heavily in this one area and your objectivity may be skewed. I’ve thought a lot about stack spins too. Assuming the above makes a sufficient case, would it be too much to ask you to model another version of stacked spins? Either your own, or I can help.

Rant out, commencing review.

Please consider the following comments.

1. “Postulate: The photon…”. You don’t mention the B-photon, always just photon. I believe we refer to the photon that can stack spins as the B-photon.  
2. “linear (c) and spin tangential velocities, both c”. Delete ‘c’. Redundant, used twice … “both c”.
3. Change velocity to momentum.
4. A single photon can only move and spin at c, or create/lose an end-over-end spin.
5. Suggest changing “for the sake of easy, relative math”, to “and keep things simple”.
6. Delete “for example”. Even better, rewrite sentence. The photon must spin up or down.
7. “most easily expressed or transferred at the opposite pole”. Sorry if I misunderstand your description, I would argue that the collision point should be the center of the new end-over-end spin, and not the point opposite it.
8. What is “it”? A particle? How does a particle travel through a longer distance? Maybe “a point on the equator”? Please rewrite.
9. End-over-end, giant swings, I’d hadn’t considered “tumble” before.
10. “the right-hand rule”, applies only for spin up, it’s the left hand rule for spin down.
11. “the average spin-state is around the Z1 level”. Interesting, what do you mean by average – halfway to an electron?
12. Are you saying that the electron is the smallest particle that recycles photons?
13. All spin states are charged particles.
14. You might add. “All higher states of matter, such as the atom, molecule, planet, sun, and galaxy all appear to recycle charge in this fashion, taking photons in mainly at the poles, and emitting them mainly from the equator.

Text reviewed, including some changes and the points identified above.
"Postulate: The photon is the fundamental quanta, the smallest particle we are aware of. It is a real particle, with real radius, volume, extension, and spin. Photon collisions transfer energy as described by Einstein’s E=mc². The c² comes directly from the combined energies from the photon’s linear (c) (2) and spin tangential velocities, both c. As the photon collides with another particle, it transmits its velocity momentum (3) through linear motion as well as its spin motion. Consider that light could have no energy without having mass: 0*c² would still be zero, so the photon must have some (tiny) mass. Our eyes see photon impacts, not electrons or protons. The photoelectric effect alone proves this, but also phototropism and photosynthesis in plants.

Hypothesis: The photon as the fundamental quanta becomes all larger particles through stacked spins. As particular collisions occur, a photon can be induced into an end-over spin outside the gyroscopic influence of the prior spin. This end-over spin effectively doubles the photon's radius each time a new spin is induced. As the photon stacks enough spins, its complex motion becomes more and more recursive, confining other smaller less-spun photons it encounters and redirecting them, recycling the ambient field of other photons. (4)  It is emitting charge. If the photon stacks enough spins, gaining radius each time, it becomes what we know as an electron. Several more spins and it becomes a neutron or proton. In this way, all particles are built fundamentally from the photon. (5)  

Demonstration: The yellow sphere represents our photon. We will give it a radius of 1 for the sake of easy, relative math to keep things simple. (5) We will also give it an axial spin to visualize how it moves. We have a spinning photon, which has polarity. It is spinning one way and not the other (clockwise or counter, the direction doesn't matter here) for example (6), and its tangential (spin) velocity will be greater at its equator than at its poles. It may collide with many other photons or larger particles on its journey through space, and most of those collisions will simply refract or redirect its path, but some collisions will affect its motion in more complex ways. Since this is an axial spin only, we will call it the A1 spin.

Here we have an incoming photon (marked as red) striking our original at a certain angle, causing the photon to "tumble" in the X-axis. Since it's already going c linearly and spinning at c, the collision energy is most easily expressed or transferred at the opposite pole - flipping the photon end-over-end. (7) It can't add any more energy in those other directions, so it tumbles. This is the first stacked spin - we will call it the X1 spin.

Since it (Cool is now traveling a longer distance, it takes a bit longer to move through the larger spin. It now has a radius of 2, relative to our initial state. This doubling of the radius also doubles its mass - it's taking up twice the volume as before in its motion, over a given timespan. Its energy has increased, and it is now more likely to collide with other photons simply because its path takes up a larger volume.

Let's add another spin. An incoming photon (green) strikes our X1 spin photon along that X axis, so our photon can't exchange this velocity except to tumble on its Y axis, just outside the influence of our previous X1 spin. This is the second stacked spin, or Y1 spin.

This doubles the radius again, giving us a relative radius of 4. A photon with two stacked spins is 4 times as large as a photon with only its axial spin.

Let's add yet another spin. The incoming (blue) photon strikes our Y1 spin photon, tumbling it into the Z1 spin. Each new stacked spin must be a tumble (9), outside the gyroscopic influence of our previous spin, orthogonal to the main vector: the right-hand rule. (10)

Now we have doubled our radius yet again. A Z1-spin photon is 8x the size of a lone, axial-spinning photon. This is the level of the infrared photon, which experiment has shown is the most common state. It's a stable average photon, and most of the ambient charge field is in the infrared spectrum. Heat is generally a measure of infrared photon density in a given volume; though other photon spin-configurations will contribute to heat, the average spin-state is around the Z1 level. (11)

Theory: Further stacked spins double the radius each time, and as the photon reaches the electron's size (literally becoming an electron), its motion and inertia becomes recursive enough to "scoop" up other incoming photons as they bounce through its path (12) . This is "charge recycling". The electron becomes a tiny fan or engine, powered by the charge field, as it takes in and re-emits photons. This is the mechanical definition of charge in action. The electron is a charged particle (13).

Stack a few more spins via further collisions, and we have the proton. If the last spins are reversed, it becomes the neutron. In this way, the photon is the fundamental quantum particle that we know of; all larger particles are built in this fashion, from stacking additional spins via certain specific collisions" (14).
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:18 am

I'm not necessarily married to the charge-engine corralling concept, but if we were to run some math on that it should be easy to determine what if any validity it might have. In an averaged ambient field of a proposed density, how many photons would be in or near the center of the proton's spin-path over a given dt? Are we talking three or four, or are we talking a million? If the proton is recycling or (basically) refracting 19x its own mass per second in charge photons, it seems possible that some or many of those photons would collide with each other on their way out? I don't know how to go about calculating that propensity, but if enough photons are in the vicinity then the proton's path seems like it would only increase the probability of them colliding. I'll try to diagram what I mean, and push my computers to do the real math if possible.

But I agree, there's no magical slowing of the photon so it reaches the other side just as the proton passes again. I also have no problem with the neutron's emission being more or less spherical, and it would actually help the Alpha models I'm working with if it were. The poles would still be polarized slightly due to the through-charge, but spherical emissions would also tend to flatten out the center of the alpha's general emission, and thus give it a little more cohesion or shape as an atomic structure. Suppress the protons' emission above and below in the central structure, but not above and below the Helium atom itself. Just visualizing here.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spins - scripting the photon's motion (technical)

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:32 am

LongTimeAirman wrote:Airman. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I agree too, although I’ll quibble and add the missing word - all mass is just angular velocity. We know angular velocity is really an acceleration so mass reduces to an acceleration, some sort of gyroscopic motion.

What about a photon moving only linearly? Would it also have angular velocity? Where's the acceleration there? It seems like all changes in velocity must be propelled or caused by something.

LongTimeAirman wrote:"The very first end-over-end boost the B-photon received turned the B-photon into a larger particle, twice the radius of the B-photon. The end-over-end spinning B-photon is the heart of the particle, it cycles photons through the particle’s core. All subsequent radius doublings occur to the larger particles, not to the B-photon core.

I agree with this. But I hesitate to differentiate between the B-photon and its motion-path shape as being the particle, in a sense. Yes, the proton is a particle, but the only part of it that can cause a collision is still the B-photon and its tiny radius. So the "particle" is then a deduction, really. An observation. Since the B-photon is moving so fast through these spins (relative to our observations, for example) it appears as a sort of shell, but it's really just that one tiny particle in complex motion.

LongTimeAirman wrote:The complex B-photon motion idea stopped making sense. How can a B-photon remember a ridiculous series of motions constantly threading its way through all the particle’s spins? If it is a single photon it cannot, it can only move forward and spin at c or develop or lose an end-over-end spin. You can point to the B-photon and say, indeed, it traces great spirographs. The B-photon however, cannot move between independent spins, else they wouldn’t be independent.

The spin wall surfaces of the particle are defined by the recycling photons within. The photons recycling through the particle do sometimes move between spins, but the great majority of photons cycle through the respective volumes in their paths through the particle engine.

Jared, you guys have invested heavily in this one area and your objectivity may be skewed. I’ve thought a lot about stack spins too. Assuming the above makes a sufficient case, would it be too much to ask you to model another version of stacked spins? Either your own, or I can help.

I would say I disagree, here. And yes, my disagreement may be skewed, but this is the chief reason we're diving so far into the stacked spin's motion propensities. I would gladly model another version, so long as its postulates hold "correct" to the Mathis model at least.

I don't know enough about gyroscopic motion and precession to determine if the motion we're trying to script is impossible. Nested gyroscopes lead me to believe it's entirely possible. I'm mostly trying to demonstrate the motion as Mathis has written t, and if it turns out to be impossible or false later, at least my representation of the theory should be accurate for my own sake. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this process and motion, so I can make a better judgement about if it is true or not. Or, rather, possible or not. The theory seems sound to me so far.

What other model should we try for? I'm open to new ideas, if you see some flaws in the motion I'm diagramming.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum