Monday, September 1, 2014

My version of the quark bag

Basically I have three unit spheres that move along the outer circle. In the math model the outer circle are three cojoined hyperbolics, the center point of each hyperbolic is the large dot.

The center grey mass is the wave function comprising the available wave modes as defined by the color white, charge, spin, charm and the rest.  That grey circle has limited wave modes because any other wave mode in this crammed space has already hit the Higgs and has long since done the gamma, flown the coop.

The unit spheres appear along specific quantized points between the grey wave and the outer circle.  There job is to keep the unit band gap between grey and the outer bag, this is the boundary condition. Whenever the grey warps a bit to  some part of the outer circle, unit spheres change position and move phase imbalance in or out to rebalance.

The hyperbolics can have a quant shift in the variable which shortens one arm relative to the other.  They can have extra size which narrows the angle.  Not shown are the nothed positions where they can appear.

In the balance between all the modes, the center mass has only the 1 unit of positive phase shift.  In the grey mass are phase and Higgs Nulls.  The separation between the two are such that wave motion is limited to the proper spectra that can be contained by the quantized points along the bag.

The sum of the unit spheres has to be one, the spectrum is asymmetric and cubic so the band gap function is shared.  The space between the grey and the outer bag is not empty, it is just below the Shannon point, so only three unit spheres can appear at a time.  The quantized points actually appear at various points along the bag inner surface, making chiral and other modes work properly, it is a three dimensional game.  The hyperbolic arms really are a hyperbolic quantized surface and can be envisioned as a worm gear that moves the unit spheres about by rotation. But, the unit spheres make mostly two exchanges, each, at any given time; hence the model is still standard, quare integrable hyperbolic. I think this model, properly parameterized, simply generates the group structure already discovered.  It adds nothing new, really.

In this model there exist the three vacuum bubbles, one of the bubble types is the inert Higgs null. Otherwise, this whole thing can be modelled as a sphere packing process.  More packing is accomplished when bubble motion and unit spheres are properly balanced.  

Unit spheres, particles, are simply tiny spherical black bodies where nulls overwhelm the phase and keep it contained, the Schwarzschild condition can be used. Waves are the opposite, they reflect from null densities. In doing so, they attempt to leave more null density behind them, but the Schwarzchild radius is never achieved. It has nothing to do with gravity. Schwarzchild is about having wave motion exterior having fewer degrees of motion than the interior.  He assumed liquid mass with infinite degrees of freedom while gravity had one radial mode. In the quark bag, the grey area, the gluons, have enough circular motions that their radial modes are less than the unit circles that keep them contained. Sphere packing is about increasing angular degrees of freedom toward the center, doing that faster than density increases.

Like particle-antiparticle annihilation.  Very easy to do because the spectra are complementary, they mix.  particle on particle requires huge energy because thw two spectra, combine tend to exceed the Higgs limit and reflect.

Charge to mass ratio is a funny thing

In the proton that value is about 10^6,  in the electron it is about 10^11, a 10^5 ratio.  But the mass ratio between the two is about 10^3.  If Compton spectrum is a result of charge imbalance, then the Compton match with the electron is way off. A curious thing.

The charge reported for the quarks is based on conservation of charge between them and the electron, but they call it the valence charge.  What is the difference in charge to mass between the quarks? They could all have much larger charge to mass between them as long as they balanced to zero.  If that were the case, then the actual Compton match among all three would be realigned with mass ratios. I think something might be missing.

Quantum chromodynamics they call is, but what is it if not a phase shift? And yes, indeed they do call it charge, otherwise known as phase shift. So, all is well, they just do not use the term charge to mass ratio.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

When the radius is three

For any sphere, using whatever units, the area and volume are equal at r = 3.  In the proton, the match is when N = 91 in phi^N, and one third of that is N=30.333, and that is a match with (3/2)^36, and 36 * 3 = 108. So, if this theory is correct, then indeed the key variable is sphere area to volume. That is the point of maximum packing. The reason is that the surface area is as equally dense as the volume so space is least wasted. This is true with Phi and only a radial degree of freedom. Add spin and then add charge and the point can be shifted because the units of counting change, and the change is permanent with no redundancy.

Combining hyperbolics in the quark system

What do we know?

Shannon holds so sinh^2 = 1 + cosh^2. This includes the band gap for spearability and makes finite order hyperbolic wave.

In the quark system the band gap is shared so:

s1^2 + s2^2 + s3^2 = 1 + c1^2 + c2^2 + c3^2  They are triangular because they can make band gap noise triangular.

We know that the quarks cannot exceed the Higgs band limit, the color white.

s1*s2*s3 = K

We know they are pairwise separated to make the Efimov:
s1*s2 + s1*s3 + s2*s3 = E

We know the lower band limit is set by the electron orbitals and that should be the Compton bandwidth standardized by 1836. So the spectrum is contained:
s1+s2+s3 = S

We have the root system, and we already know the roots from previous work.  So, just skip the Boson thing and use spectral definitions instead. And we know the spin and charge are just quantum shifts in the cosh and sinh functions, on a unit circle basis.  These shifts narrow the hyperbolic angle and complete the flow between unit spheres.

Model the thing as two simultaneous exchanges per unit sphere, but allow for possibly three. So there is an additional warping noise on the unit spheres. But the limit of two exchange per event makes Efimov fundamental. The other fundamental is no redundant spectrum.

Peter Gorden is smarter than the average economist

Transaction costs are the key part of transaction rates and transaction noise, and transaction rates make up the economy.  How could economists leave this out of their models and still make useful results? They cannot.
Transaction costs: It seems strange but for most of its life, economics was a field of study that did not recognize transaction costs. Look at the 200-year Ngram results, below. Ronald Coase changed things. Without him, we would be stuck with Nirvana economics, still teaching things that students could easily see are not terribly useful or linked to the world they know.

Mark Perry sends us to the Calafia Beach pundit

And we learn that John Keynes was an ignorant:
In the six years ending June, 2014 (a period which encompasses the worst of the 2008 financial crisis and the entirety of the recovery to date), the after-tax profits of U.S. corporations totaled about $8.9 trillion. This marked an all-time record for corporate profits, both nominally and relative to GDP: profits averaged about 9.4% of GDP per year. By comparison, over the past 55 years, after-tax corporate profits have averaged only about 6.4% of GDP per year.

Over the same six-year period, the federal government borrowed about $7.4 trillion from the U.S. and global capital markets to fund its deficit. This resulted in a doubling of the federal debt burden, from 36% of GDP in mid-2008 to about 73% today.

Despite assurances from politicians and most economists of Keynesian persuasion, not only did the biggest and most rapid increase in our federal debt burden since WW II fail to boost the economy, it coincided with the weakest recovery in history—growth of only 2.2% per year on average. (I was among those who warned in late 2008 that this would happen, and quite a few times over the years following.) This is not a problem of not spending enough, it is a failure of ideology, and arguably the most expensive such failure in the history of the world.  
Here's the failure in a nutshell: The government can't stimulate the economy by borrowing from Peter and sending a check to Paul, because that doesn't create any new demand—it's like taking a bucket of water from one end of the pool and pouring it into the other end; the level of the water doesn't change. And the government can't stimulate the economy by spending more, because the government is notoriously inefficient (not to mention the fraud, waste, and incompetence that surround most major public initiatives); the private sector is far more likely to spend its money wisely and productively than the government is. Growth only happens when an economy produces more from a given amount of resources—when productivity rises. And productivity only rises when people work more, smarter, and more efficiently, and that takes hard work and risk. You can't just dial up productivity, you have to work for it. We can't "spend our way to prosperity," as the late and great Jude Wanniski told us.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Shannon's world where wires were uniformly dense and round

His model of the signal was that its power fell are the square of the frequency. So, ln(1+e^[-x*x]) always came to K*-x^2 , where K represents the clock and noise spectrum. So when sending the log, x was recovered by taking the square rootL:(-K*X^2)^(1/2), and that led to sampling at twice the signal rate to recover the signal and led naturally to a binary counting system.  We need to talk cubic signals.

But first, why do signals fall off as f^2 in the engineering world?  Mainly because disruptions come from echoes vertical to the line of sight.  At high frequencies, the return echo from the surface of a wire, for example, falls on the next cycle, while at low freque3ncies it falls on the current cycle.

Spectrum, sphere packing and quarks

We have quarks because there are few configurations for packing three spheres in the center of the proton.   Its a volume to surface area problem.The edge of the proton is right where the Compton spectrum almost nearly matches the Null numbers.  So the packing would leave mostly trapped light and kinetic energy would have to be narrow band and very high frequency. The density gradient so high that the spectrum would have a very long tail to the edge, all the way to the electron band where electrons would form. So, the system was stuck with the electron and needed charge to hold them together.  But a phase shift in the dense nulls in the center needs band stops for kinetic energy. Kinetic energy eats up bandwidth if you have this huge unite sphere.  So break them in two and have opposite spin? Then there is unbalanced charge because we still need to fill the electron spectral gap.

This works. The Y axis is the Compton spectral match, it is optimum at zero. The Efimov solution, it allows a net positive charge and room for high frequency motion of the unit spheres.  Unit spheres have wider or narrower hyperbolic angles when we phase shift. 

I think that right, I will double check.  In this case the two quarks with negative positive charge got the narrow angle and the quark with  positive negative charge the wide, making the isosceles triangle. The two symmetric quarks use the symmetric cubic root and thus operate with a shift in delta N between them, their quantum numbers must have an integer shift. The unit spheres move inside and along the arms, I think. If this is right, then the electron has the narrowest wide angle, I need to think this through a bit.

So am I saying that fibonacci numbers have size?

I dunno, I may have myself in a pickle, still thinking. But most likely both bubble sizes exist in streams. They will sort themselves out.

Having a very good Compton spectral match.  This is the peak of the proton, very well matched.  The quarks try to remove phase imbalance by kinetic energy but get close to equilibrium and kinetic spectrum is gone. The  positive quarks move along the circle to the negative quark, acquiring charge.  With only 1/3 charge, they quickly cease moving. And they always keep one quant apart along the hyperbolic arms. So they see saw. The quark with the negative positive charge is pulling in positive negative from the electron. I doubt these unit spheres can make more than two exchanges at a time, and mostly use one hyperbolic arm to point skyward, outside the bag. Inside the spheres they run a log network, a finite graph with the 1/F, and the ins and outs have to closely match.

No, Stanley Jaki, physics will certainly use simple math

Stanley Jaki, in his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, pointed out that, because any "theory of everything" will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything.[27] In a later reflection, Jaki states that it is wrong to say that a final theory is impossible, but rather that "when it is on hand one cannot know rigorously that it is a final theory."[28]

This is wrong, mainly because in sub atomic physics the IQ of the elementary thing is  1.5.  Any unit sphere in atomic physics likely get only two things balanced for every three things exchanged.    Hence, it is not very parallel in its operations. Ultimately, I think we will be able to describe the proton without using any integer number higher than 32 and without using any fractions other than 1/2 or 1/3. Its a simple fact that the vacuum has only a small reach, each exchange it does likely connects less than five neighboring parts of the vacuum.

Take my spectral chart for example. I have irrational Phi, the golden ratio and exponents up to 127.  But that was me the human, using infinite math to approximate the simplicity of nature. I was mostly fumbling and experimenting.  But the vacuum itself, was using a rational fraction, and an exponent not much bigger than 17. The vacuum then switched to a second rational fraction, analogous to the second Lagrange.  Add in the third Lagrange, also a rational fraction, and all told, I doubt the vacuum uses a total exponent greater than 16, and of that is only uses is in four consecutive ratios not exceeding five.

Is it possible to use elaborate math and show the vacuum always uses small numbers? Hard, it is easier to simply use the stupidity of the vacuum and prove it know nothing more than five, and five is a lucky guess for the vacuum. 

Or consider charge, as an inverse r^2 function. Hard to prove how that works, but once we realise that all thing are spherical, then we can see the r^2 comes from tangential motion of a wave summed up.  The r^2 comes from finite differences. The vacuum does not use integrals. The vacuum can do 1/2 and 1/3 fractions, mostly because the  vacuum constituents come in triples, and one is inert. Fuzzy balls, spinners, charge and quarks all result from these simple difference in vacuum components. Inside the unit sphere, the vacuum can only maximally separate three independent flows. Look at the periodic table, hardly a multiple of five in mass. We do not see five in nature until we get to complex biochemistry.

The entire spectrum of mass motions is no more than  five.  Look at atomic orbitals, four quantum numbers and they rarely count to more than four. The entire system is built on the concept that things that do not fit fly away as light. Even the Higgs mechanism only happens because bubble can only deform into ellipsoids, that set the complexity of motions. The vacuum does not even know square roots, much less cube roots.  It has these roots approximated by ratios, and all ratios are made from, combinations of extra coagulants.  The roots are simply bounded, and kinetic energy naturally finds better approximations. Spherical composites rule simply because the vacuum can barely manage two degrees of freedom, and radial symmetry is best when it only has three different constituents.

Even phase offsets, or imaginary numbers are impossible. The unit sphere cannot hold one exchange in abeyance to exchange the order of events. It has no queue management in exchanges. I doubt gravity makes more than 40 exchanges a second, slower than an ancient modem. The proton is everywhere, simply because there are so few starting points and the process so simple that only a few stable outcome are possible. And there seems to be a shortage of Higgs nulls in the universe.

 The vacuum works works because squeezing in anything unstable is too complex for a simple vacuum.

Friday, August 29, 2014

We cannot treat charge and mass separately in the electron

If we believe in the Higgs null, then we believe that electrons can lose a bit of mass and gain a bit of charge.  We also have to believe that the electron can be destroyed on one place within the orbit and reformed in another. Our problem is the invention of the Higgs quant field, sorry, but it changes everything.

I will be using that equation above for the electron. Its solution is tanh(x), and that equation says the force acting on a unit circle is equal to the unit circle minus one unit of mass.
I will be placing the unit circle inside the hyperbolic arms and move it back and forth like a reversible shock wave.  When that electron moves down the X axis toward the proton, it gains a little mass and loses a little charge. The unit circle is moving to and fro within the hyperbolic arms, and the arms are conduits for removing and adding quants of Higgs null. (Somewhere around 3000-5000, to the nth power (n from 1-6 typically) little vacuum bubble of Higgs in each exchange.

It is impossible for any physicists to talk about distribution of charge without talking about distribution of Higgs nulls they are very similar constituents of the vacuum, except one is inert. The cube in that equation above results from the combined effect of less charge and more mass, in the unit circle, as it moves toward the proton.

Its not really charge

Its big bubbles(positive) vs smaller (negative) .  It about fitting inside the large proton sphere.  When the electron moves toward the proton, it gains more big bubbles, it don't fit any more in that direction. So those hyperbolic arms move big bubbles up one direction and small bubbles down the other. The quarks have the same feature, and they lock arms toward the center, and the other arm point outward, running along the surface. It is all local action, it is all relativistic.

The angle of that hyperbola, it is narrow at high energies,  more motion fits into smaller spaces, that is compaction.  It is all about three bubble sizes and in the process of trying to fit, they have curved space, small bubble toward the center.

Why are quarks different?
 The Efimov effect.  The arms of the hyperbola do not [point toward the center. The do little movement to and from the center because the exchange is along the surface of the sphere and the arms are parallel with the sphere surface and exchange only with two  neighbors.  The 'bag' as MIT calls it:
The MIT bag model confines three non-interacting quarks to a spherical cavity, with the boundary condition that the quark vector current vanish on the boundary.
Close, they need the Efimov effect.  But the 'bag' itself has it own hyperbolic arms, moving positive charge to the electron and negative charge to the outside surface of the orbitals.  Think flow, three sized bubble trying to fit in this curved space.
The surface current on that bag are high frequency, near the Higgs band limit. Add energy to the system and the three quarks flip to different positions on the surface, using kinetic energy to gain the bandwidth needed.  Those positions are complements to the electron orbitals at high energies.

The day is coming when physicists and mathematicians will simply write out the spectral modes for three sphere packing under a given space curvature.  Physics will suddenly be a lot simpler.