Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:20 am

So all they really did was transfer a signal from the laser to the atoms and back again.

No stopped or even slowed photons at all.

Very sloppy wording to make it sound special.

This just looks like confirmation that photons have mass to me. If they insist that photons are mass-less then they have to explain how angular momentum is being transferred to the atoms.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LloydK on Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:30 am

Cr6 quoted: Information describing the fading laser pulse was stored, like a code, in the up-and-down patterns of the atoms' spin axes.
They mention atoms' spin axes, but they don't say that atoms actually spin, do they? Do they refer to such spin as virtual?


LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Cr6 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:35 am

It looks like they are reaching for a "quantum" binary storage system for computing. (yeah...and good luck with that.... Wink )

What they are describing appears shaped to match with quantum theory.

This article has more detail on how the "stoppage" was done.
-----------

The syrup used by Lene Hau and colleagues is a gas of several million sodium atoms, cooled to within a few millionths of a degree of absolute zero. These atoms are held in a cloud within a magnetic 'atom trap'.
Normally, the gas won't allow light to pass through it. But it can be made transparent by illuminating it with a laser beam, called the 'coupling beam'. This makes it selectively transparent -- it will allow a 'probe' laser pulse to pass through it only if the light is a certain colour.

The coupling beam is like a celebrity's bodyguard in a crowd, clearing a path through the cold gas that allows the probe beam to pass. If the bodyguard is suddenly removed -- if the coupling laser is turned off as the probe light is passing through the gas cloud -- then the probe beam stops dead in its tracks, unable to move further. This is not the same as simply turning the gas dark, so that the probe light is absorbed.

If the coupling beam is turned back on, the probe beam continues on its journey. So if information is encoded in the probe pulse -- rather as information is encoded in electrical pulses in computers -- it can be recovered moments later like a letter delayed in the mail.

The researchers anticipate that this method might find use in 'quantum computers' -- devices much faster and more powerful than present-day computers. These new machines will process information stored and transmitted in 'quantum states', such as the states of individual photons (packets of light) in a light beam. The team's technique offers a way of storing quantum information and interconverting moving and stationary data streams.

Inspired by Hau's slowing of light two years ago, Ronald Walsworth and Mikhail Lukin, also based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have carried out very similar experiments at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. Their results will be published later this month in the journal Physical Review Letters2.

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/010125/full/news010125-3.html

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LloydK on Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:18 am

Information in Photons
Cr6 quoted: So if information is encoded in the probe pulse [] it can be recovered moments later
Does anyone know what is meant by "information" there? I assume it's the same sort of signal that's carried in radio waves and tv signals on carrier waves, which I guess is similar to signals carried by microwaves for cell phones etc. I suppose the signals could generate holograms, since they use lasers. Or are the lasers not the carrier waves?

Speaking of carrier waves, it looks like MM hasn't discussed that anywhere yet. Does anyone have an idea how photons would carry signals of information?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:21 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn, Apparent mass, as I used it, is not rest mass (level 1). I intended it to be the total spin mass of levels 2-4. Thanks for pointing out that that can’t be right. But yes, I meant inertia. Can you have negative inertia? I’m using the sign, positive or negative, as the spin direction (or spin precession) and NOT rest mass equivalence, while the magnitude indicates a sort of spin coherence. No snark intended, does this sign convention violate any of the specifics you listed? I think I’m using it correctly.

Seeing inertia as gyroscopic resistance to a change in the direction of the spin axis, spin and anti-spin are parallel, with opposite precessions, which presents a direction varying inertia. Any force not affecting the spin axis direction will not experience inertial spin resistance. Hits parallel to spin and in the direction of spin will see no inertia. Edge hits upon the equator, and orthogonal to the spin axis transfer energy most efficiently. Direct spin axis pole hits parallel to the spin axis also do not experience inertial resistance. All other impacts see inertial spin resistance. Inertia here looks like an emergent property.

I assume that the particle’s inertia may be represented by a time varying function depending on the total individual photon spins, positive or negative, within each particle; that seems reasonable.

I see what you are trying to do with the negative sign now but I don't think it is really negative. Not in an absolute sense. If the spin direction is in the same direction as the collision then it will appear as less mass, not negative mass (compared to some other direction). We don't need to specify the spin direction with +/- because a spin is represented by a velocity vector which already has a direction in it. +/- can only represent 1 dimension but spins happen in all directions so we need a 3D vector to represent them. Actually, we need 4 things to represent a spin: a center point, an axis, a radius and a tangential velocity. If I wanted to compress that into the smallest number of values I would put the axis and radius together such that the length of the axis is the radius but you must remember that the actual radius is orthogonal to the axis and in all directions in that plane. That gives us 3 vectors or 9 values (3x3 matrix) to represent 1 spin level.

I think it is important to realise that mass has no meaning outside of a collision. We may assume a given particle has mass when not in collision but the only way to actually know is to collide it with something else. And even knowing it, it can only be applied in a collision. This means we always have 2 particles involved, each with its own location which allows us to determine the point of collision and calculate all spins from the perspective of that point. The sum of these gives us the total motion in each dimension at that point. This is the level 2 mass. It is where the particle wants to go so the collision has to overcome that motion or add to it. In this sense you are right to call it a direction varying inertia. In some ways it is also a time varying inertia because time is used to determine where the particle is in its spin cycle.

In my opinion, everything boils down to motion so everything else is emergent. Given expansion we can even represent mass as a motion so in this way it is emergent too. This is what Miles means when he says that we can dispense with concepts like mass, inertia, etc, they all come down to motion so they are just names we give to specific motions. Even time is a motion (and I don't mean the flow of time but that time is a secondary measurement of motion that we relate to our primary measurement).

LongtimeAirman wrote:
If there were exactly the same number of spins and antispins contained within the particle, and they were all spin axis parallel, what would the total particle inertial function look like? How do well structured channels of photon and antiphoton flow within a particle affect its inertia. How does the inertial function interact with the ambient pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields?

You are correct that some spins can counteract other spins because their spin axes are parallel and their directions are opposite. However, this is not correct in an absolute sense because adjacent spin levels must be orthogonal to each other so they can not be parallel. Also, given that every spin level has a different radius, the spins themselves are not equal and will not counteract each other completely but they can at certain points in the spin cycle. Further more, again because of the different radii, the time it takes to complete a revolution is different for every spin level, the larger the radius the more time it takes to complete a revolution (since they have the same tangential velocity but a larger radius means there is more distance to travel). Therefore, the inertial function has to take into account the point of collision and calculate everything from that point, as I described above.

Photon flow through a particle is another area that needs a lot of attention but I think we need to work without that for now so that we can describe collisions without the complications they bring into it. Once we have a decent understanding of stacked spin collisions we can complicate it again.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I’m currently lost in your various combinations of possible internal photon sizes (?) etc and still owe you feedback. Does this discussion indicate you've changed your particle model?

I haven't changed my particle model so much as I am still fleshing it out. Some of the things I have posted about recently have always been in my model but I didn't mention them before. I assumed they were obvious, and that is always a dangerous assumption, or I didn't realise how prominent they were or how they connected to other things. I'm still trying to figure all of this out myself so it is all a work in progress. I've been thinking about spin velocities adding to mass for a while and these posts have let me flesh that out a little bit so things might seem to be changing but they are really just becoming more defined. Well, I guess that is change then, isn't it?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Cr6 on Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:41 am

Nice post Nevyn. I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from and getting at. It looks like a good approach to define "real" hits at the photon-atom level. 

LLoyd: wrote:Does anyone know what is meant by "information" there? I assume it's the same sort of signal that's carried in radio waves and tv signals on carrier waves, which I guess is similar to signals carried by microwaves for cell phones etc. I suppose the signals could generate holograms, since they use lasers. Or are the lasers not the carrier waves?

Speaking of carrier waves, it looks like MM hasn't discussed that anywhere yet. Does anyone have an idea how photons would carry signals of information?

I think something like a "re-mapping" is needed between MM and these Slow-light laser experiments with are couched with QT definitions. I'm personally beginning to just discount most experimental outcomes in terms of strict QT if I can't find a MM quote (or the group's here) on how a physical hits in the Charge Field results in a particular outcome.  At the end of the day, MM allows another "definition" for an outcome over "Feynman" and QT and sometimes even Newtonian physics. 

Nevyn: wrote:So all they really did was transfer a signal from the laser to the atoms and back again.

No stopped or even slowed photons at all.

Very sloppy wording to make it sound special.

This just looks like confirmation that photons have mass to me. If they insist that photons are mass-less then they have to explain how angular momentum is being transferred to the atoms.
That was similar to my impression. Something was not accounted for with the Charge Field interactions. The Charge Field essentially means all photons have "velocity" and hence contribute to measures such as mass by their hits.

Mathis' recent paper kind of hints at this (he's definitely from Austin):

My Bicycle Seat as proof of the charge field

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Tetra Tops as the Breakthrough in Stacked Spins

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:56 pm

Hi all,

Contemplating a possible speed driven expandable/collapsible oct-tet (60-120deg) gear transmission (yeah right), I started looking for general images at an R Buckminster Fuller site - https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/synergetics.

I admit that I’ve made a few tensegrity models and a jitterbug or two in my day. Toys. I’ve stacked spheres (metal, magnetic, marbles, styrofoam and balloons) for projects, models and fun more times than I can recall. I came across something old, yet new. Lucite balls glued together in basic polyhedral forms. Starting from above, in the store, page 4, http://bfi.goodsie.com/page/4 http://bfi.goodsie.com/page/4



So, what! To my surprise, they spin!

Interesting first time experiences - Tetra Tops®- Tomorrow's Toy Today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IAK3vCjSkw

The History of TetraTops™, An episode of “Invent This”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIB8lFcV3GY

And a nice concise Teaching Guide -
https://www.yo-yo.com/images/forms-catalogs/tetra_tops_big.pdf

Now this isn’t the sort of thing I would normally share with you guys, but my alarm went off.

Multiple particles acting as a single body with multiple rotational axies.

Gyroscopic aggregates, with the ability to collect more particles or to contain separate spinning regions within.

IMHO, this is a valid model basis for Stacked Spins!


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : I've never done anything right the first time)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LloydK on Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:56 am

Airman, how are those tetratops much different from spinning jacks etc? How are they so similar to MM's model?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:44 am

Lloyd wrote:Airman, how are those tetratops much different from spinning jacks etc? How are they so similar to MM's model?
Hi Lloyd, As I see it, there are two main differences.

1) All tetratops have multiple spin axii. A tetrahedron “top” comprised of four spheres, can spin on any of the four separate spin axii (through the center of gravity, and the vertex sphere contacting the table). An octohedron can spin on any of its 6 spheres. A cube, like a single die, can spin on any of its 8 corner points. Normal tops only have a single spin axis. Some jacks (like a six pointed octahedral cross) may also spin equally on any point.

2) Tetratops can stack. Though I don’t necessarily mean “add the tetrahedron to the octahedron and make a tower”. The idea here, is that as spheres are added, the aggregate created will be gaining energy by addition of real mass, changing the center of gravity, along with the spin axis. Spheres can be added which will cause the aggregate to develop the stacked spins.

The tetratops focused and reinforced my belief in aggregate photons.

Miles has said, (I’m paraphrasing) as a photon gains energy it grows more massive, increasing radius, while still capable of traveling at c.

Nevyn, (please correct me if I’m wrong), has interpreted that general statement literally, as saying that as a single photon gains energy, it is somehow physically creating mass that increases its radius.

How do you add energy to the photon?

Any additional energy must come from collisions. As with higher energy positive impacts with other photons, or even from a gentle accumulation of photons.

Consider that the charge field acts as an emission barrier, preventing direct contact between electrons and protons. A single small (axial spin alone) photon has no emission field. There is nothing to prevent gravitational accumulation of small photons without that emission field. You may believe that photons are too energetic to accumulate, but single photons have the fastest reaction masses of all matter, one small photon could not possibly shake the other loose. You may say that few photons travel paths close enough to join, but we see the most distant objects in space from such photon accumulations, sometimes at great energy (x-ray or higher). Only collisions can break photon aggregates apart.  

Of course, things get more interesting with levels 2 and 3, (axial plus two single stacked spins).

From "Photons slowed below c? Not Really", photons travel at c. They blend into the ambient field, mostly avoiding impacts by virtue of their relatively small size. They are sometimes slowed by with collisions with larger, more massive objects, but are quickly speeded back up to c by subsequent photon impacts. Photons are defined as photons by virtue of their luminal speed.

From "Unifying the Electron and Proton" we get "protons stripped of their 4 spins (axial, x, y, and z) are electrons”. As verified by his stacked-spin math. Miles has said that the same mechanism applies to photons. As in, an electron, stripped of all spins, is a photon.

Unlike level 1, level 2 and 3 photons recycle level 1, or small photon aggregates. That seems evident to me. It’s a simple question for Miles. They must recycle real photons, not just energy quanta that result in new mass totals. A complex path represented as the higher level stacked spin of a single photon has no photons to recycle. You might say that level 2 or 3 photons recycle photons from collisions, but a single photon travelling at c should have few collisions with other photons. Also, a single photon may move at c, but if it travels that complex, convoluted path, the “total” photon particle envelope cannot reach luminal speed.

Level 2 or 3 photons, as aggregates of level 1 (or 2) photons, can contain sub-aggregates with their own spins. They can spin stack, recycle, and group travel at c.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:49 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:Miles has said, (I’m paraphrasing) as a photon gains energy it grows more massive, increasing radius, while still capable of traveling at c.

Nevyn, (please correct me if I’m wrong), has interpreted that general statement literally, as saying that as a single photon gains energy, it is somehow physically creating mass that increases its radius.

You are correct in my interpretation that it is a single BPhoton that gains spins. I just wanted to clarify the very last part where you said 'it is somehow physically creating mass that increases its radius'. It is the other way around. It is the increasing radius that causes the change, not the gaining of mass. It is not really gaining mass at all (if you think of mass as the intrinsic mass of a BPhoton). It is gaining size which means it is more likely to collide with other particles. This size increase allows the existing mass to be expressed more often which we measure as more mass. Remember that mass is ONLY applicable in a collision. If a particle is not in a collision then it may as well have no mass because it is irrelevant. So if we increase the rate of collision then it will appear as a larger mass only because the existing mass is being expressed more often, not because it has actually increased.

The increased radius is a strange beast. You can't just think of it as a larger sphere. It is really just a larger volume of space that you might find the BPhoton in, which I call a sphere of influence (it's not really a sphere, either). The actual particle has not changed its size, just the amount of space that it moves within. As an analogy, think of trying to move through a crowd of people at a concert. The best way to make it through is to make yourself as small as possible. Now try the same thing but hold your arms out wide. You are going to collide with many more people even though you have not increased your mass, just the amount of space you take up. Because of the larger space, you collide more often, since your real mass is being expressed in each collision, you appear to have more mass. You will travel much slower through the crowd than with your arms tucked in. To be even more precise, you should spin as you move through the crowd. When your arms are tucked in, there will be no difference (not watching where you are going aside) but when your arms are stretched out, you will sometimes make it past other people (when you arms are facing forwards and backwards) but other times you will collide with people. That is closer to the stacked spin mass increase as it takes into account that the particle can be anywhere within its sphere of influence at a given time. The sphere of influence just provides more opportunity for collisions and therefore, more opportunity to express its mass and slow it down.

In the case of a photon, it takes quite a few radius increases to get to a size that slows it down considerably.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Cr6 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:37 am

This is a good quote from the photon.html paper:

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html




I have shown that the photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton. The first question begged is, “Why isn’t there a stable particle one level below the electron?” Good question. Why don’t we find a stable particle with a mass 1/1821 that of the electron mass, which would be 5 x 10-34 kg? If that were a photon, it would have an energy of 4.5 x 10-17 J, and a frequency of 6.8 x 1016/s. So the answer is, we do have a stable particle at that mass equivalence: it is just an ultraviolet photon. Which means we need a further question: “Why are photons stable over a wide range of energies, while electrons and protons are not?” Well, electrons and protons are stable over a wide range of energies. They gain energy as we accelerate them, and they are stable at all these velocities, as long as they avoid collision. And, like the photons, they show an increase in wavelength as they accelerate.
Which brings up the third question begged: if that is true, then how is it that photons can vary their wavelength without changing speed? An electron has to accelerate to show a different wavelength: electrons going the same speed cannot be different “colors.” But photons can. The answer to this question is a paper in itself, but the short answer is that photons have two wavelengths. The individual photons have a wavelength that is determined by local spins, just as with the electron. These wavelengths are exceedingly short, being multiples of the photon radius. These are the wavelengths that show themselves in photon traps, and that have caused the mysteries of superposition. But the photon also shows another wavelength at the macrolevel: this wavelength is the wavelength that we see and measure in more common optical devices. The stretched wavelengths we see give us a large variation in energy and color, but the local (real) wavelengths vary by only a tiny amount. This tiny amount is insignificant as measured from our level, so it does not affect the relative energy of the photon, which is its speed.



Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:19 pm

Nevyn wrote:It is the other way around. It is the increasing radius that causes the change, not the gaining of mass. It is not really gaining mass at all (if you think of mass as the intrinsic mass of a BPhoton). It is gaining size which means it is more likely to collide with other particles. This size increase allows the existing mass to be expressed more often which we measure as more mass. Remember that mass is ONLY applicable in a collision. If a particle is not in a collision then it may as well have no mass because it is irrelevant. So if we increase the rate of collision then it will appear as a larger mass only because the existing mass is being expressed more often, not because it has actually increased.

The increased radius is a strange beast. You can't just think of it as a larger sphere. It is really just a larger volume of space that you might find the BPhoton in, which I call a sphere of influence (it's not really a sphere, either). The actual particle has not changed its size, just the amount of space that it moves within.

I agree with this description, and the motion-model we were working on previously illustrates this as well. The photon is traveling through a larger volume per Δt, and thus more likely to encounter other photons. It's not until the electron level that this becomes recursive, meaning that an ambient charge photon may bounce around inside the volume-of-influence (VOI) more than once and/or encounter other photons doing the same, inside the electron's VOI-shell.



Here is the latest, cleanest version of that motion-model video. Four spins, axial-X-Y-Z:

Stacked Spins 1-4 v6

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LloydK on Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:16 pm

Hey, Jared. Why don't you show those dark inner spin-level spheres for each frame of a video? Maybe give each one a different color. I think that might make the entire motion understandable easier, or maybe more perceptible. Because we viewers could focus on the motion of one spin-level sphere at a time.

How about it? Oh, I just checked out your latest video, and it looks like you took my advice before I gave it to you. Thanks.

By the way, folks, would it be helpful to have more MM fans join us on this forum? If so, maybe someone should ask MM to invite fans, not doubters, to this forum, maybe in one of his upcoming papers. Anyway, I think I'll invite members of the Miles Mathis Revolution Facebook group to join, or at least see what we have going on here.

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:28 pm

Hey Lloyd, does this help:

X Spin: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?set1=t&set1_levels=t,t,f,f&marker=line%20groups&rec=yes

Y Spin: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?set1=t&set1_levels=t,t,t,f&marker=line%20groups&rec=yes

Z Spin: http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/SpinSimulator/app.html?set1=t&set1_levels=t,t,t,t&marker=line%20groups&rec=yes

I am in the process of creating a new SpinSim that only contains 1 viewpoint, not the 4 I have been using for years. This will allow you to rotate around the particle to see it in all its 3D glory. This will have to do for now, though.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:43 pm

That's really cool, Nevyn. Having a much longer path/draw time on yours really shows the actual VOI shape a lot better, and reminds me a lot of those Spirograph art toys they had when I was a child.



Those were just 2D but created similar patterns. I guess my point is that on this kind of timeline, the path doesn't look unnatural at all. And from the side views your model looks like a strange oblong jellyfish creature, also not unnatural.

The Spirograph made stuff like this:

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:20 pm

Yeah, I actually like having the 4 views of the same particle, but I am so used to it that I can read them easily. I realise now that it is a huge learning curve for everyone else so I am creating another version, this one will still exist, that will lead into the more complex views.

The VOIs do get in the way of seeing the path itself, but it is a small price to pay for the better visualisation they provide (you can turn them off in the settings).

If you look at that image of SpinSim above, you will notice a few straight line segments that don't seem to fit. That is because they don't. They are caused by switching tabs in your browser (not all of them do this) or even switching to a different application, possibly. Basically, some browsers will stop the rendering while the user is not viewing the page. This makes sense but in this case, the position of each spin level is set by time, not frame, so the markers jump from the previous position to the new one.

The Spirograph actually uses stacked spins to perform its job, but it is limited to 2 dimensions and the spins are about the same dimension, but potentially different axes (ie. locations). It doesn't follow the same rules, but it is basically a version of stacked spins.

If you want to see something cool and a bit freaky, click on the Z Spin link above and then turn off the marker limit in the settings. Watch the top-left panel and you will eventually see an alien face staring out at you. I tried using that as the icon for SpinSim but it didn't work as well as I hoped when resized down to a very small icon.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:22 pm

Nevyn, The alien winked at me.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:30 pm

Haha. I once took a screenshot of it so that I could see if it worked as an icon and the red photon just happened to be in the left eye socket. It looked pretty cool.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LloydK on Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:42 pm

The path might be a little easier to conceive if the colors of the path would vary according to distance from the observer and or according to time since first formed.

Are the polar openings visible yet? Or does there need to be more spin-levels added first? Is it hard to add the next spin-levels?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:23 am

I'm pretty sure the polar openings aren't really in play until the electron level, since the particle is still roughly as small as most of those around it. That is to say, the infrared b-Photon charge-average is not just four spins, but a few more than what I've been showing. So most photons are actually more complex than this, though Nevyn has that covered in his simulation much better than I do for future work. We're getting there, though!

Lloyd, in my animation the motion trail fades from yellow to orange to purple over time. It's not as clear as Nevyn's motion trails are, but it does show the volume as well as the path.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:59 am

You can see what I have interpreted as the polar holes in the image Jared has posted of SpinSim above. That is a Z Spin and the bottom half of the image (with the cool pointer) is looking down the Z axis at it. The hole in the middle, which kind of looks like a wide open mouth, is where through-charge would pass through. Now, the hole is not as large as that makes it look, because the green lines represent the path, but not the size of the BPhoton. However, since it is not really a hole, that doesn't really matter. What does matter, is that when the BPhoton is moving through that area, it is moving along the Z dimension (so up towards the viewer) which could push charge in that direction, creating through-charge. When the BPhoton on moving around the outside of that green path, it could create equatorial emission.

That's how I interpret it, anyway. Everything is complicated by the linear motion, which stretches that green path out into a wave. Electrons and protons can not travel as fast as a photon though, so it does compress back up a little bit, but not really enough to form the shapes we see here.

If an electron or proton was held still, then it would form that path, but a moving particle, especially if we are talking relativistic velocities, moves more towards a wave path than a circular path. I think that would mean that a relativistic electron/proton would stop emitting charge.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:15 am

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm pretty sure the polar openings aren't really in play until the electron level, since the particle is still roughly as small as most of those around it.

Correct. The model shown only contains 3 stacked spins and there is no hole. However, that same shape/path is generated for any number of spins above what is shown, so we can think of that as an electron/proton or nectron/neutron (although they have a slightly different path) if we remember that a charge photon is going to be so small that you could not see it. At that size, the hole is very large compared to a charge photon, although as I stated above, it isn't really a hole because it isn't really a shape, just a record of the path it took.

What you can read from these paths is the density of the lines. If there are a lot of lines close together then the BPhoton spends a lot of time in this area so it is going to push more charge from this area. Take note of the directions that the BPhoton is moving in these areas to judge where it might send charge photons if it collided there.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by LloydK on Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:18 am

Nevyn wrote:[The photon path] isn't really a shape, just a record of the path it took. What you can read from these paths is the density of the lines. If there are a lot of lines close together then the BPhoton spends a lot of time in this area so it is going to push more charge from this area. Take note of the directions that the BPhoton is moving in these areas to judge where it might send charge photons if it collided there.
I like to compare the photon path in a particle to the path of the blades of an electric fan. The blades have relatively small volume and mass at rest, but when spinning fast the volume is effectively the entire path of the blades. A slower object that moves toward the blades will collide with them and be deflected or get beaten up.

Is it conceivable that the photon that makes up a particle could have greatly increased superluminal speed, maybe because of angular momentum? Because then it would be more similar to fan blades and it would be easier to understand how b-photons entering it could be deflected as if hitting the walls of a solid container. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine how the incoming photons would be guided to the particle's equator or poles. It seems like only a tiny fraction of incoming photons would be deflected at all. Can't this be proven with fairly simple math?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:46 am

It could be considered similar to fan blades, but we don't need math to visualize it. Consider that almost every photon encountering another will have four or more stacked spins. Visualize the photons we've shown in our animations encountering other, similar-radius photons. The propensity for collisions would be roughly equal.

Now go up eight spins to the electron level. The incoming particle (which IS the photon, no need to differentiate) has a complex but rather large motion, even relative to the electron or proton, and even though it's far smaller there are far more of them since infrared is the average charge photon. It's not remotely infinitely small, "you see."

It's not that the photons need be attracted to the electron or proton, it's simply that there are so many of them. Those larger particles are already constantly "swimming" among the smaller, so they're already saturated with charge to begin with - which is how they can keep their spin momentum as well. Remember that larger particles such as the fabled (alleged) Higgs' Boson aren't stable, because they're too big and can't find equilibrium in the ambient charge field.

So to answer your last question, it doesn't really matter if only a tiny fraction of the charge photons are recycled, because 1/100th of billions is still a huge number, especially on a long enough dt (delta-time, or "change in time"). Mathis has shown that the proton recycles 19x its own mass per second in charge photons, so we know that they do collide, and often enough to create everything larger than a hydrogen atom we've ever witnessed, to keep larger atoms and molecules together, and give us the reality we perceive and interact with. If quadrillions of photons never collide or touch the proton, it's still pushing hard enough to hold reality as we know it together. According to the theory.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 203
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Stacked Spin Breakthrough

Post by Nevyn on Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:59 am

LloydK wrote:
Is it conceivable that the photon that makes up a particle could have greatly increased superluminal speed, maybe because of angular momentum?

No, it is not possible because we have plenty of data to the contrary. The rotation speeds of the spin levels are set by 2 things: the radius of the spin level; and the equation E=mc^2. The first gives us a size (or distance) and the second gives us a tangential velocity. I've gone over the radius side of things above, that is what all of my timing calculations are. In that, I assumed a tangential velocity, for all spin levels, of c. The reason I did that is because of E=mc^2.

***** Edit *****
In that previous paragraph, I referred to my timing calculations but I have just realised that they are not in this thread. You can see those calculations at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t213p50-proposal-electricity-animation#1579.
***** /Edit *****

That equation tells us that the energy of a particle is its mass, times by the speed of light, times by the speed of light. Why does it use the speed of light twice? And multiplied? That is a huge number. Why do we need to scale the mass so far? Where is all of this speed coming from?

Well we can see where one of those c's are coming from because any photon has a linear velocity of c. So the other c must be coming from the spin or you have to come up with another motion that can contain c without affecting the linear velocity. Since energy is expressed in a collision, we know that c is the tangential velocity of the spin level as that is what is imparted to the other photon. That is why all photons are emitted at c.

What does that tell us about the mass? It seems to me that the mass variable in that equation is hiding a lot of information. That needs to be expanded out into a more flexible form. My thoughts are that mass is the sum of the stacked spin velocities. In this particular equation we are already expressing the top level spin with one of those c's, so m is representing all spins inside of the top level. It represents what the collision is fighting against. What it has to overcome or deal with in some way. Kind of like momentum and kind of like inertia but really, it is just velocities.

LloydK wrote:
Because then it would be more similar to fan blades and it would be easier to understand how b-photons entering it could be deflected as if hitting the walls of a solid container.

You can use fan blades to visualize it but you have to take the relative speed of each fan to the next into consideration. You are assuming that all fans spin at the same speed when that is just not the case with stacked spins. Each fan spins 0.707 times by the previous fans speed. You also have to remember that you can only collide with the smallest of fans. You don't get to collide with the bigger ones, only the first. So there is no solid container.

I know it's not easy to visualize this stuff. If it was easy, we'd have nothing to argue about and how boring would life be then?


Last edited by Nevyn on Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:10 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Thread confusion)
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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