Thursday, January 6, 2011

Repost of Draft problem 2

There are many relevant comments listed on the original posting. 
I hope this helps those who were having issues with the display of original posting.
Aaron Guerami

To do this I need to build the description of the photon,

The photon is an analog of information about the emitting baryon. This data structure called the photon holds information on the emitting baryon's nature.

The information contained in a photon transmits the temperature of the emitting baryon.

A bit of information is called a meme. Fractals are used to reduce the complex information to smaller, more discrete variables. Three memes rotating, producing 4 bits of information.

Level of information.
Lever 4 data is raw information. All higher level dataset is a derivative of the level 4 data.
Level 4 data is 4 bit
Level 3 dataset is 16 bits
Level 2 dataset is 64 bits
Level 1 dataset is 256 bits

3 Level 4 datasets + rotation = 1 Level 3 rotating dataset.
3 Level 3 datasets + rotation = 1 Level 2 rotating dataset
3 Level 2 datasets + rotation = 1 Level 1 rotating dataset
3 Level 1 datasets + rotation = 1 photon.

4 dimensions of information in 4 dimensions of space.

Wave Length: u(λ,T) = ((8(pi)hc)/λ^5)*(1/e^(hc/λkT)-1)
Planck's Equations are quite useful. The reason they work so well is they are not influenced by gravity. By using Max Planck wave length equations, we can derive the temperature and frequency of the wave length.
The wavelength of a photon is the information about the photon.

The memes of the (L1)wave length are;
(L2) the wave length

(L2)the radius of the wave length to the midpoint of rotation at the largest area of the cone.

(L2) the velocity of the spin
(L2)previous position ((L3)x,y,z).

Frequency: u(v,T) = ((8(pi)hv^3)/(c^3))*(1/(e^(hv/kT)-1)
The frequency of the photon is the intensity of the emitting baryon.
The memes of the (L1) Frequency are
(L2) angular momentum of each meme.
(L2) The frequency or vibration of each meme.
(L2) Spin Velocity (speed and direction) of each meme.
(L2) Previous Spin Velocity.

The Spectra of the photon is the identification of the emitting baryon. By evaluating what is missing in the spectra, the receiving baryon can identify the part the molecule the emitting baryon was. Spectra also describes the identity and intensity from the emitting baryon of every magnetic field the photon passes through.

u = spectra. The emitting Baryon leaves its identification on the spectra. Along the spectral line, where the temperature = 0, identifies the emitting baryon and the history of photon and W+/- Boson interactions. Spectra is the temperature.

The spin of the photon is the counter of the photon.


Lets look at this through a filter. What happens to the photons when I place a filter on my telescope?

The filter absorbs or reflects photons. It also allows some photons to pass through, but altered.

The Spectra of a photon is the identification of the emitting baryon and the history of what magnetic fields the photon has passed through.

Polishing a mirror. The interaction of the photon and electron.

Polishing a mirror is smoothing the glass molecules and moving almost all the electrons on one side of the glass to the next layers of the glass. The uncharged mirror then can reflect the photon.

It is important to understand that a photon must be absorbed and created by an electron. The electron is the interaction of the Z Boson and the W+/- Boson.

Move to new posting

Photons in motion through Dark Energy.
1) the photons motion in general
2) Dark Energy
3) Interactions
a) W+/- Boson
b) baryons without electrons
4) Electron emission
5) Electron absorption

Problem 2
2) The perception of it being slower when passing through a non-vacuum is due to the time lost to photons being absorbed and re-emitted by the matter it is passing through.

Anonymous said...

So... lots of questions, but I'll withhold them all until you complete your write-up.

But one aspect in particular is bugging me... why the discretization via fixed sized values? It seems so arbitrary and limiting. For example, you define the "previous position" as a set of 3 16-bit spacial values... that's incredibly limiting. You're saying that each dimension of space only contains 65536 possible positions, and that there are only 281 trillion total positions in space a photon can be in at any point in time? Why? And in what way does that aid your theory in producing results?

And what about time? What does "previous" mean in your context? When exactly did the "previous position" apply? A second ago? A half second ago? A quarter second ago? One "counter" interval ago?

I don't understand how you can use the word "analog" so often, but have a theory that represents everything digitally.
Hi, Thanks for the comment.

I am going to start backwards and work towards the first point.

Yes, the data is digital. But the motion of the data is very analog. Electronics requires an Analog to Digital converter to convert real data to digital data.

Analog is a 3+1 dimensional set of data in motion. Whereas digital data is very 2 dimensional. Even 3 dimensional digital data is a series of sets of 2 dimensional digital datasets which are converted into 3 dimensions. Then usually displayed in 2 dimensions.

The previous position is the last Dark Energy position the photon traveled through. Dark Energy in this theory is where the math is done in each and every position. I call these discrete Dark Energy positions 'Rulesets'.

Since the speed of light is variable, we can see that there are many possible partial and complete + partial rotations a photon can have while travelling though a ruleset.

Time is local to the photon travelling. A baryon rotates, so its time is local to the baryon.

It is not necessary for bosons and baryons to run on an Universal Timeclock.

Yes, the sizes of the datasets are arbitrary. It is limiting. But this is the first theory that even attempts to describe data in this manner.

I have never hear the number of positions a photon can have in space at any point in time. I realize my data sets are small compared to the actual data involved. 4^16 might be more realistic to explain a 4th level data point.

Since this is only the second iteration of this model I expect these minor issues can be easily managed. In the first iteration of this model (most of the blog), I don't actually try and describe the information in detail. For the photon I describe the information as only temperature, wave length, frequency and counter.

Please ask as many questions as you want. This kind of conversation helps me recover. The quicker I recover the quicker I can add new issues to this model.

Many Thanks
Aaron Guerami

Anonymous said...

It wouldn't matter if you're data size was hyper-exponential, it's still finite, and don't see anything to suggest, in the standard model or in yours, that space has any finite aspect, but is instead nonenumerably infinite in all dimensions, in which case, any attempt to discretize it is flawed from the start.

Digital is NOT a model of reality to begin with. Digital models are inherently abstract, and say nothing whatsoever about the universe around us. They come about from purely mathematicaly manipulation in the form of numerical constructs, which themselves are universal abstractions, independent of and unyielding to any aspect of our physical universe.

And as an abstract model of information, "digital" can be of any (finite) number of (finite) dimensions. The digital representation of a 3D cube is 3 dimensional, period. Yes, the 2D rendering of a 3D cube is 2D, but you don't have to render it. You could just calculate with it, or convert it to a data file for transmission, or use it to model cubic routing calculations through a distributed network, or what have you. The cube is abstract, and genuinely 3D. And likewise, other digital constructs can be genuinely N dimensional in their construction.

Although I would accept the argument that all digital data is 1 dimensional, owing to the fact that any N dimensional digital data set can be represented by a single number. But inherently 2D? Don't think so.

Coming back to the point, to ascribe to a particle a digital packet of information is making (what seems to me anyway) an unexplained leap.

Also, I went and read some of your material on Dark Matter... some things are a little clearer now. But another point there, somewhat relating back to this conversation: you break up the universe into cube-structured regions, and base the counter interaction with these regions. Again, you've discretized the universe.

(Just to check my assumptions, it seems rulesets are fixed regions of space through which vibrations traverse, and in doing so, their local clock, in the form of the counter, is incremented. Ignore the following if that's not true.)

As a consequence, the "counter" will increment at different rates based soley on the direction of travel of a "vibration", and independent of it's velocity, which is unintuitive.

Just for giggles, let's define each ruleset's region as a 1 unit by 1 unit by 1 unit space (where "unit" is arbitrary... I think you have it as a boson width).

So when traveling exactly parallel one of the axes at a velocity of, say, 1 unit per second, for, say, 10 seconds, you'll travel 10 units.

But let's say you travel at a 45 degree angle through a plane (which itself is perpendicular to one of the axes), now, the cubic regions are longer than they were before, since the diagonal of a square is longer than the width (by a ratio of Sqrt[2]). So now, at the same velocity of 1 unit per second, and over the same duration of 10 seconds, you'll only traverse 10/(1*Sqrt[2]) units total, or ~7.07 units. Similar logic if you travel diagonal to all three axes.

So at the same velocity and for the same duration, your counter increments 10 times in one direction, but only 7 in another, and still less in others.

Of course, the alternate explanation is that vibrations "jump" from cube to cube, rather than continuously flow through space defined by their union. In which case, you now have a new problem. At the same velocity and for the same duration, your counter will now stay the same, but you will have actually traveled different distances dependent on the direction of travel, since moving along the diagonals will allow you to jump farther in a single unit than moving along the axes.

Either way, the basic equation "velocity = distance / time" doesn't hold, and the discretization still seems arbitrary and in conflict with the physical universe.
Hi, Thanks for the comment. I want to take the time to read your postings then formulate some solutions or re-evaluate some problems.

I know the dark energy solution is the most difficult part of all this.

I think there are many current solutions in physics that are ridiculous at best. This is an attempt to evaluate a better solution to these problems. Really, I hear about time travel more then I hear about charge.

If the model used can be solved with a byproduct of time travel or an infinite number of dimensions or multiverse, well then the solution is not correct.

I chose the discrete data model with the analog movement because that is what we see in reality. In order for discrete data to transmit/receive it must involve DAC and ADC conversions. The model of physics must include these processes as the foundation of the manner in which it operates.

I am going to think about the motion. Being that cube have their own problems and spheres have theirs,,, well I have some thinking to do.

Thanks again for reading my work.
Aaron Guerami

I spend some time reading and thinking about your comment.

Every model has some form of arbitrary unit. SR and GR use the Cosmological Constant. Gravity changes frequently. The absolute constant of the speed of light changes constantly.

Einstein's Space-Time is 2 dimensional. It is a plane, flat. The third dimension is the effect of 1 dimensional mass on the plane.

Dark Energy in this model does not have a clock. Time is local to the boson travelling though the ruleset. So the boson may rotate partially or in positive real numbers through the ruleset. The ruleset does not impact the boson's rotation.

The distance from the origin of a ruleset to X(n),Y(n),Z(n) is always farther then X(0),Y(0),Z(n). But that is the reason this model is set in this manner. This really shows that space is really not relevant to the boson. It is the interaction of bosons that create the change in bosons. Not the space in which they travel.

Digital data is 2 dimensional. The requirement of digital data is the construct and the data. The construct must exist before holding data. The data can be null, but the construct still exists.

I have shown in the previous posting a photon that is not rotating. By that picture we can toss the equation Velocity = distance/time. There are many models that we currently use that need reexamination.

Jumping from ruleset to ruleset is a problem that I will continue to evaluate. At this point I find the storage of the current position as the previous position through out the ruleset does hold some merit.

Thanks again.

Anonymous said...

No problem, I'll give you time to digest.

I think my main problem (with respect to the discretization stuff) is well summarized by your last comment: "I chose the discrete data model with the analog movement because that is what we see in reality."

My mind is somewhat willing to bend on discretization to some degree, what with quanta being well established. But on fixed-bit-width finite values? Eh...

And regarding time, you previously mentioned "Time is local to the photon traveling.", so it seems like you may be subject to the same relativistic effects of clock locality that SR is subject to, so I'm not so sure you've avoided the time travel issue, but I'd have to hear more.

And regarding square vs cube, that's not really the whole issue. With spheres, you'd have the sphere packing issue (dead space). And with either, you also have the issue of the vibration traveling off center or at odd angles, such that it may experience more or less counter changes... imagine a vibration traveling diagonally through a 2d grid through the square centerpoints, vs one also traveling diagonally, but offset from the center points. The latter would experience twice as many counters as the former. In fact the one traveling through the center points is a degenerate case, with the vast majority experiencing double time. Same problem with any manner of shapes, provided they're aligned along some vector.

I'm picking at these little model issues because they're foundational, and thus impact the rest of your work if they're not sensible. But stepping back, where are the results? For instance, you dig up Planck's equation... he established his black-body law while trying to theoretically model the results of experiment, and once completed, had an equation that was able to do so. And altough perhaps his explanation was lacking, the work was picked up and extended into a complete theory.

But I don't see that here.

Not trying to be condescending, by the way. You're probably familiar with much of this, and you obviously have given it a lot of though that I haven't had the luxury of, but I just want to make sure I state things clearly and don't assume too much.

Anonymous said...

RE arbitary units: That constant is a correction factor to make up for what seems to be an ever present energy level, and introducing it enabled theoretical results to match experiment. It was brought in to the theory for a reason, and as such isn't quite arbitrary. Your reduction of all parameters to finite domain doesn't seem to have been introduced to achieve any positive effect or to increase the accuracy of any calculations.

RE distance: Yes, X(n),Y(n),Z(n) is farther from the origin in a flat geometry than X(0),Y(0),Z(n), but that wasn't the point. My point was simply that the number of rulesets the particle will pass through is the same, even though one is further away, which seemed an inconsistency worth mentioning. 0,0,0->1,1,1->2,2,2->3,3,3 is the same number of rulesets as 0,0,0->0,0,1->0,0,2->0,0,3, yet the first is 4.24 units long in space, while the latter only 3. Is that desirable?

RE digital data: Interesting viewpoint. First, I could argue that analog data is also 2D in that sense. Simple waves are given structure by saying they are all solutions to a sin(b x + c), and the content would be all real-valued 3-tuples (a, b, c) represented in physicality as actual waves, which isn't much different to representing digital waves as finite n-bit 3-tuples (a, b, c) to be interpreted as having the same structure, and represented in physicality as a sequence of 3n bits. Both the analong and digital version would be called 3-D, interpreting each to have 3 free independent variables. I don't see the difference.

RE photon rotating: I've been purposefully not referring to the constancy of C issue yet :) But I would be curious to see how you would redefine velocity...

And it looks like my previous post is missing... strange.
Hi Thanks again for the great conversation.

I don't really like the discrete data model with analog movement, but that is what we have to work with.

I through out the notion of spheres a long time ago (many rotations). For all the reasons you mention.

Personally I don't think Plank's equation is entirely correct. It just does not use gravity. In my main set of equations I wrote in the papers 'Structure of a baryon' and 'Variables involved in Baryonic motion' allow for existing equations and work to be used until something better is established. the black body equation is based on a sphere. But he needed to have some arbitrary shape. I understand.

Lets look at the photon and time again. A photon is 3 dependent data structures rotating around a midpoint. The direction of the midpoint is the direction of the photon.

The wavelength is composed of 3 data structures rotating around a midpoint.

I am changing the second statement in this. The original statement did not communicate the idea correctly.

The memes of the (L1)wave length are;
(L2) the wave length
(L2)the midpoint of the wave length
(L2) the velocity of the spin
(L2)previous position ((L3)x,y,z).


The memes of the (L1)wave length are;
(L2) the wave length
(L2)the radius of the wave length to the midpoint of rotation at the largest area of the cone.
(L2) the velocity of the spin
(L2)previous position ((L3)x,y,z).

Wave lengths are not straight lines, they are vibrating also. This is frequency. It is closely related to wavelength. Temp is also calculated from these two data sets.

I just had a minor seizure so I will need to rest.

It is the magnetic field that affects the photon's time not dark energy. Dark eneergy is just a place to do the math. time is local to the boson. one boson does not care about another boson's time.

let say one high energy gamma ray and a radio wave hit the ruleset at the point in the observers quasi understanding of local time.

Sorry, lost the idea. need to go.

Other comments are on the original posting but are not necessary to move to this. If you wish to read those comments 

I hope that is more helpful then trying to solve the possible pointer error.

Post a Comment