Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Characteristic impedance and bandwidth

The weak interaction has a very short range (around 10−17–10−16 m[8]).[7] At distances around 10−18 meters, the weak interaction has a strength of a similar magnitude to the electromagnetic force; but at distances of around 3×10−17 m the weak interaction is 10,000 times weaker than the electromagnetic.[9]

The impedance of free space, Z0, is a physical constant relating the magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation travelling through free space. That is, Z0 = |E|/|H|, where |E| is the electric field strength and |H| magnetic field strength. It has an exact irrational value, given approximately as 376.73031... ohms.[1]

OK, I use the Maxwell definition to mean the rate of change of one frequency band to another.  The ratio of wave numbers that bound the free wave in that mode. Do I have the definition right? Who knows. I will take the inverse or not.

The weak force is bound between the gluon wave number and the upper boundary of the atomic orbitals, just above the oproton, likely. Probably 6 order difference. The atomic orbitals occupy some 14 slots between their Shannon wave number. Whatever the definition of impedance, you can be sure the weak force will run into bandwidth issues very quickly.

The elecro weak force

If you look at how particle theorists describe the force, and its relationship to electro magnetism, the description is all group theory.

Calling groups by some name like electro or magnetic only works after you have found the group separation points that were coupled Shannon points.   Its all phase and null anyway. What happens when the wave and mass quant match nearly perfectly? SNR goes way up. Noise, kinetic energy results from deviations from the Compton wavelength. Then you get a lot of wave energy needed to balance phase.  But this force seems to mediate between the neutrons and the protons.  The strong force mediates between quarks.  So the naming convention seems off to me.

A force is strong when its Shannon barriers are high, it can move many nulls without quantizing them. When the weak force separated from the electro magnetic, it made its own group, but its group is weaker than the nuclear force.

So, near the proton level, where wave and null ratios match, we have many possible ways to combine kinetic and mass rates to match the wave number. So, apply a phase imbalance to a partially complete system.  Like all good Fibonacci adders, it will attempt to combine nulls into a stable set. This weak force likely came about in within a mass of semi-stable heavy leptons, and found a null group  that involved a charged electron and part of a Neutron. Thus the electron orbitals as we know them. The way the physicists find these stable combinations, I think, is simply finding the nominal wave/null match, then comparing the various statistical and integer algebras. Basically the same way a stupid vacuum would do it.

Gravity, around these parts, does not have much Shannon barrier, and requantizes mass at many quant ratios, small and occupies many quant slots. The weak Shannon barrier of gravity is why we always think it a continuous.

Physicists talk about the hierarchy problem, why is gravity so much weaker than a subatomic force like the electro weak?  It is not a hierarchy problem, it is a multiple of threes problem.  There is room up near the proton for many multiples of twos and threes, simple as that.   We are dealing with a vacuum that must do simple arithmetic.  Group separation makes its life much easier. Super symmetry is all about combining multiples of twos and threes in groups and subgroups to allow some precision for this simple, fairly stupid vacuum. When you have this super integer system up near the proton, then adding in a few, weaker sub groups is fairly easy,

Gravity is way down the order, around order ten.  Signal to noise sucks, and gravity is likely stuck with a few prime and not much multiplies.

Understanding the power of groups is understood by looking at the ability of the proton to count out some 120 different types of atoms and their orbitals.  The proton is near that magic number, 108. Factor that number and you will see its strength.

Go back to group theory and add Shannon, the world will be much simpler.

A better way to ask this question

Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons? Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles (a theory of Yukawa couplings)?

Is there another mass ratio that would be as good a near perfect match with the Compton wave number at the level of the proton? Clearly the stability of the Proton and the nature of the quark/gluon interaction are related. Also clear is that the dimensionality of the quark (spin, charge, mass, up, down, charm) and the gluon color matching all are part of the stability.

It is also clear that the quark/gluon stability allow the atomic real to be diverse and stable, and are the reason we have no magnetic quantization.

SO, ask another question. What other Null quantization ratio schemes would do better? Go look. And then, since this all results from the nature of the vacuum, why is the vacuum the way it is?

The answer, I think, is that no other structure of the vacuum can exist.  Topology should tell us, any other structure of the vacuum will immediately evolve into the one we have.

Another related question. Why does phase imbalance in the proton make it so stable, even in free space? And if the Neutron is much less sable by 10e36 years, then why does it take ten minutes to decay? The process inside the Neutron is ultra high frequency, and internal oscillations would immediately cause the delay. 

Why do paerticle come in families, some physicists ask

Because the Compton wavelength rule is fundamental and wave and nulls quantize to different ratios.  It comes from the property of the vacuum. Understanding how a simple vacuum can count is simple, understanding where it came from is hard.

Higgs field equivalence

The Higgs wave I believe in.  Its interpretation is subject to debate since one could write the standard model from the ground up or the top down.  From the ground up, the Higgs wave prevents any higher order mass quantization, it is a blockage, not a delivery vehicle.  Both positions require the Higgs, for the same reason, and both positions have problem.  Matter can be packed from Nulls, counting up from the bottom. But how does null packing obtain and constrain the force needed to make the quark? It needs the Higgs.

From the ground up, having wave action push Nulls around is not a problem.

The vacuum fluid

Liquid Spacetime - The Fluid Flow Of General Relativity?

If we follow up the analogy with fluids it doesn't make sense to expect these types of changes only" explains Liberati. "If spacetime is a kind of fluid, then we must also take into account its viscosity and other dissipative effects, which had never been considered in detail."
Liberati and Maccione cataloged these effects and showed that viscosity tends to rapidly dissipate photons and other particles along their path, "And yet we can see photons travelling from astrophysical objects located millions of light years away!" says Liberati. "If spacetime is a fluid, then according to our calculations it must necessarily be a superfluid. This means that its viscosity value is extremely low, close to zero.
"We also predicted other weaker dissipative effects, which we might be able to see with future astrophysical observations. Should this happen, we would have a strong clue to support the emergent models of spacetime. With modern astrophysics technology the time has come to bring quantum gravity from a merely speculative view point to a more phenomenological one. One cannot imagine a more exciting time to be working on gravity".

They are not alone, Einstein said the vacuum had inherent energy. So, how much of a fluid is the vacuum? Well, how about (3/2)^-108 of the fluidity of the proton, as near as I can tell.  That tiny number seems to agree with both Max Plank and Albert when they postulated the the energy of the vacuum.  What effect would that cause when viewing light from 60 million light years? Energy spread of light, and red shift, as a matter of fact. 
The bigger problem is whether the energy of the vacuum is dissipating. And if not, what replenishes it? And if so, where would it go?

I have decided to make quantum pie

I have rules for making Quantum pie. It is to be filled by machines that must fill the pie dish evenly. The pie dish will rotate on a spindle, thus the pie dish has a hole in its center. And the pie has an outside edge. I call these my Shannon pie boundaries. The rotation of the pie is constant, I call this the speed of pie. The pie will be filled by four machines, each of them will use one of four spoons. But no machine may use the same spoon size as its neighbor within one unit of speed of pie. My machines must be able to calculate pie filling to within their integer limits, so my pie quants must obey some group pie theory rules. The goal is to minimize the variation of pie density during one rotation of the quantum pie. Wish me luck, it will take a day or so. I can get this on my R code system pretty quick.

 Nope, this is not it.  This just shows I have 3d graphics up and running!

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Null was discovered in 1995, I am not alone

Nature: In 1995, Ted Jacobson, a physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park, combined these two findings, and postulated that every point in space lies on a tiny 'black-hole horizon' that also obeys the entropy–area relationship. From that, he found, the mathematics yielded Einstein's equations of general relativity — but using only thermodynamic concepts, not the idea of bending space-time1.

The Null is a black hole?

Sure, why not. It does nothing, it is the best sphere that nature can make. There are about .3e17 of them in a Plank length, as near as I can tell. We are made of them.

It is not surprising that physicists have though of these ideas before. after all, they have to count things up, so they are likely to consider the unit thing counted up' One of the physicists actually though that everything was made of the smallest thing, including gravity! He almost nailed it.

Fractions and stochastic algebra

The atomic orbitals are not quantized to Shannon, meaning they do not make a two bit digit system, but make a digit system in the natural log. They do not have SNR greater than 1/5. So a wave function of the orbitals will have forms looking like:

e^(k) + e^(k-1)+  e^(k-1)....

A perfectly fine digit system, the k are integer, the quantum numbers of the orbitals.  And we can treat them like a digit system, add, subtract, multipy and so on.  But when we draw them, we convert to the twos system of our computers.  If we do that anyway, then just use Shannon with a high enough sample rate and find all the orbital quantum numbers.  Essentially what we would be doing is breaking the electron mass into fine granularity, applying a bit of special relativity.

Look what happens:
1) Convert e to log2(e) = 1.4427 = b then we get:

2^(l*k) + 2^(l*(k-1) + 2^(l * k-2)......

Nice, the the l*(k),l*(k-1)... are not integer, and we really do not have a nice digit system until we scale b up to an integer like 144.  Still works but we are dealing with a 144*k*j digit number. So, if we have some 20 quantum numbers total, we would apply Shannon across the spherical phase density using 20 * 144 integers; computing all the integers to quantize that phase density.

Why not? Good question, why not.  You end up with three variables, one for radius squared, one for theta angle and one for beta angle, and the pretty picture would be a series of binary numbers added up, each binary number ranging from about 1 to 1000 digits. So what? I dunno, why not.

All we are doing in atomic physics is minimizing the variance of {-1,0,1} within the proton.  The know wave/mass numbers that define the orbital boundaries, so we know the total phase. We should know the relative amount of phase in a unit of charge, so we initialize the proton  to that. We know the number of Nulls in a proton. We have chopped up the electron enough to accommodate relativity.   In finding the Shannon boundaries of the orbitals we have accommodated magnetism. Maximum entropy is minimum phase to the precision of 1000 digits over the sphere of the Proton. We ignore the quarks, they just give us an axis of symmetry.  The orbitals are simply the paths of uniform phase, so we map the proton phase function onto the orbitals

I simply cannot find fault.

Five years ago, I was not alone

Physics of the Shannon Limits
We provide a simple physical interpretation, in the context of the second law of thermodynamics, to the information inequality (a.k.a. the Gibbs' inequality, which is also equivalent to the log-sum inequality), asserting that the relative entropy between two probability distributions cannot be negative. Since this inequality stands at the basis of the data processing theorem (DPT), and the DPT in turn is at the heart of most, if not all, proofs of converse theorems in Shannon theory, it is observed that conceptually, the roots of fundamental limits of Information Theory can actually be attributed to the laws of physics, in particular, to the second law of thermodynamics, and at least indirectly, also to the law of energy conservation. By the same token, in the other direction: one can view the second law as stemming from information-theoretic principles.
Entropy means optimally matching with a countable set.