http://www.physics.org/

-




Field Theory


Quantum field theory is the synthesis of two great fundamental theories of physics: the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. It was found that, in order to amalgamate these two fundamental principles, particles have to be seen as manifestations of an underlying field, similar to electric and magnetic fields.


The resulting quantum field theory of elementary particles has been extraordinarily successful. Not only can the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation be described to unprecedented accuracy, but other forms of interaction have also been captured in the same mould. These other forms of interaction are the nuclear forces, which come in two types: the weak interaction responsible for radioactivity, and the strong interaction, responsible for the stability of the nuclei of atoms. The resulting unified field theory combines all three forces of nature into a coherent framework called the Standard Model. It has been extremely successful, so far explaining all experimental results of particle accelerators like the LEP at CERN. Nevertheless, the model is universally considered unsatisfactory, mainly because there are too many adjustable parameters. Moreover, the model does not include the remaining fourth type of force, gravity. Exciting new ideas have been put forward to overcome these shortcomings, notably the so-called superstring theory. A new particle collider at CERN may shortly be in a position to test these ideas. In order to compare the results of these experiments with theoretical predictions, very complicated calculations need to be performed to derive the theoretical consequences of the basic models. DIAS researchers are at the forefront of attempts to improve the methods used to perform these calculations as well as to develop the underlying theory. This involves new concepts of modern mathematics such as noncommutative geometry, as well as advanced computing.


 


-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-03-06 01:00:12 --

Hi guys
What prevents the two Strong force and gravity being the same. I know i am putting theory 'out there ' but my descrïption of internal waves explains an inherent inwards force which also acts outwardly.
   Unless the particle has a compelling reason , it would not move anything outwards above radiation level. this could be measured "going from " an object or atom. But the resultant Gravity would have dissapated the level of strength, given that energy not returning would simply continue outwardly.
   in a close parameter where the earth itself was the most desirable 'rest' state , almost all the gravity activity is towards it . objects would not even bother with each other since the signals from the earths core would be too compeling.
   
Cheers
Iseason  

--Last edited by Iseason on 2007-03-07 02:43:07 --

That is QUITE SOME question, Isea! Very inclusive!



Ameny Intef IV

Hi Ameny Intef Iv

The thought process is an extension of mine that we have seperated our worlds a little too cleanly. We are used to having atomic, stella and terrestial.
  But there is no reason why within that frame work , the middleground is active between thew three. If the earth can create a gravity against the moon which dissapates at a difference , then any variation in an orbit will need to be terminal for the relationship. This must be true unless there is an energy "top-up" which brings the body back into a closer alignment. For this reason , gravity makes little sense.

With my theory. Newton's law is preserved by equal and opposite . The only way radiation can move outwards is if something forced it to. this includes gravity waves. If a planet Or any size of molecules, planets, stars and atoms) Have a prefferred rest region. That will be at the very centre of whatever "local" mass we are talking about. This will mean that the region will continually upset by incoming 'particles seeking optimum rest.' If this area is continually squeezed , then the smallest particles are likely to be the ones ejected since they will be the only ones with a chance of getting through the incoming waves.
  These will be also some of the most energetic. When they fan out and leave the planet, they seek a like rest state that they were forced out of. But momentum prevents this. They may even be blessed with a memory for where they came from. Who knows.
  Upon reaching some region like the moon , (like ripples in a pool) only those which were directly reflected back at the earth return . Perhaps the ones which are not directly reflected back lose enough momentum to return via a longer route. I don't know.

 The main point is that the moon does the same to the earth. And by reading that there is a better rest state , begins to head in that direction.
  This works for mass like a car on the earth. If it can find a better state of rest by getting closer to the centre , it will.

I am currently revising this view a little in light of other views concerning limited energy function. You will see a bit more on this in other posts. But it allows that the moon remains restless to keep reality. Since it's momentum is in one direction , it cannot radically change it to get to the earth.For one , the radiation from earth has left a limited number of pixels to use, Therefore the moon first recreates itself , then conserves itself by heading towards earth. If it cannot keep reality , it cannot remain in orbit.
   The regularity of the cycle means that the universe is governed along the same lines. because the planetary rotations are predictable , the space we pass through has a similar density on the same cycles. This means the holes created in space of used and unused pixels are consistant.

 Cheers
Iseason

Quote :

Iseason wrote : Hi Ameny Intef Iv The thought process is an extension of mine that we have seperated our worlds a little too cleanly. We are used to having atomic, stella and terrestial.   But there is no reason why within that frame work , the middleground is active between thew three. If the earth can create a gravity against the moon which dissapates at a difference , then any variation in an orbit will need to be terminal for the relationship. This must be true unless there is an energy "top-up" which brings the body back into a closer alignment. For this reason , gravity makes little sense. With my theory. Newton's law is preserved by equal and opposite . The only way radiation can move outwards is if something forced it to. this includes gravity waves. If a planet Or any size of molecules, planets, stars and atoms) Have a prefferred rest region. That will be at the very centre of whatever "local" mass we are talking about. This will mean that the region will continually upset by incoming 'particles seeking optimum rest.' If this area is continually squeezed , then the smallest particles are likely to be the ones ejected since they will be the only ones with a chance of getting through the incoming waves.   These will be also some of the most energetic. When they fan out and leave the planet, they seek a like rest state that they were forced out of. But momentum prevents this. They may even be blessed with a memory for where they came from. Who knows.   Upon reaching some region like the moon , (like ripples in a pool) only those which were directly reflected back at the earth return . Perhaps the ones which are not directly reflected back lose enough momentum to return via a longer route. I don't know.  The main point is that the moon does the same to the earth. And by reading that there is a better rest state , begins to head in that direction.   This works for mass like a car on the earth. If it can find a better state of rest by getting closer to the centre , it will. I am currently revising this view a little in light of other views concerning limited energy function. You will see a bit more on this in other posts. But it allows that the moon remains restless to keep reality. Since it's momentum is in one direction , it cannot radically change it to get to the earth.For one , the radiation from earth has left a limited number of pixels to use, Therefore the moon first recreates itself , then conserves itself by heading towards earth. If it cannot keep reality , it cannot remain in orbit.    The regularity of the cycle means that the universe is governed along the same lines. because the planetary rotations are predictable , the space we pass through has a similar density on the same cycles. This means the holes created in space of used and unused pixels are consistant.  Cheers Iseason

Iseason,

(I have heard the word pixel used in graphics before. I am aware of its use in that respect. I am asssuming that you Iseas have a reason for using the word in the way you, do ..?)


ANYWAY:
         To me Isea, the world of "microcosm" real is interesting, too. Maybe, even MORE than: terrestrial or stella. Maybe a "unifying theory" of Quantum Physics will be discovered in this part of the spectrum. ferme  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-04-03 06:15:52 --

Hi Ferme

I am substituting a "pixel" as my first particle.Size is not relevant when I say that. Yes , pixels are used in video, But I don't have a descrïptive word for the particle that I am talking about.

  What i do know is that in building something , I must have a material to begin. At a certain size , the particle becomes too big and cumbersome to answer all questions. When I begin at a singular particle , I can do ANYTHING with it. There is nothing beyond scope, because the size variation for anything is upwards in scale.

  When I am looking at any region , atomic and above, the behaviour of the particle can only make sense if it is seperated from the original state. IE being everywhere at once. That state needs to be able to break down into a sensible "ability" to do what I am suggesting. Size is crucial to this. I cannot give a measurement of the particle or a billion billion sizes in between it and our smallest fundamental state.

   The solid state of the aether is illusionary since we cannot measure the difference, But when motion becomes obvious through it, the variation has a liquid motion that "can be caused" in the way I describe.The trick is to seperate the event of reality from the solid state of the aether.

the particle filled the universe in one state "all at once"

then the particle filled the universe in another state"all at once".

in between is the order of varience between one state and another.

What happened is that the two states needed to occur in the exact same "time".

'drop a penny and pick it up'

But the dropping and the picking up must occur at opposing ends of our view of time

"Alpha and Omega"   "beginning and end"

So our reality is based on looking through both ends of the hall of mirrors at the same time. we see both the dropping and the picking up, but because our "relativity " makes us incredibly large compared to the particle, we see much less "action" and much more "solid matter"

It also means we cannot breach much of the depth , both physically and in measurements .It's much like a spinning wheel effect. The spokes are the same, but the parameters are different.

Cheers
Iseason.  

--Last edited by Iseason on 2007-04-03 05:54:34 --

Quote :

Iseason wrote : Hi Ferme I am substituting a "pixel" as my first particle.Size is not relevant when I say that. Yes , pixels are used in video, But I don't have a descrïptive word for the particle that I am talking about.   What i do know is that in building something , I must have a material to begin. At a certain size , the particle becomes too big and cumbersome to answer all questions. When I begin at a singular particle , I can do ANYTHING with it. There is nothing beyond scope, because the size variation for anything is upwards in scale.   When I am looking at any region , atomic and above, the behaviour of the particle can only make sense if it is seperated from the original state. IE being everywhere at once. That state needs to be able to break down into a sensible "ability" to do what I am suggesting. Size is crucial to this. I cannot give a measurement of the particle or a billion billion sizes in between it and our smallest fundamental state.   Cheers Iseason.

Ise, when you say: quote " There is nothing beyond scope, because the size variation for anything is upwards in scale." end-quote  -


WHY NOT look at scale in terms, of: Positive & Negative ....!

Therefore: "Up-scale" can be Positive, then "Down-scale" can be Negative ...! OR, "Down-scale" can be Positive, then " Up-scale" can be Negative. THEN: permutations of the same strain ...... THEN: permutation inclusive ..a " pinch-distort" effect ....?

ferme  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-04-03 21:06:29 --

Hi Ferme

I think , If I understand you correctly , that what you are proposing gives the universe a picture like a stereo speaker.(for lack of a better picture)we are probably trying to do too much with the scales all at once.

If I said the overall "reality" was a change of states. Then the "occurance" was "not even instant". It just happened.

one particle became another particle .

If I look at the motion of the planets as they move through space, the exact same thing occurs.

one particle becomes another particle.(only we are so slow , we see a grouping)

only when I begin to add up the "occurances of the particle" do I begin to expect a definable order in the universe.So you can be right and wrong at the same time.

If you call the perception of the particle in one state positive and the other negative, then you are right. If you say the particle vibrated in order to create a resonant reality, then you are wrong, because motion in a singular particle reality is impossible.

ok!, now I've done it . I can't move and I need a theory to create a workable model of the universe.

That will have to wait until tomorrow.

Night
Iseason

Quote :

Iseason wrote : Hi Ferme I think , If I understand you correctly , that what you are proposing gives the universe a picture like a stereo speaker.(for lack of a better picture)we are probably trying to do too much with the scales all at once. If I said the overall "reality" was a change of states. Then the "occurance" was "not even instant". It just happened. one particle became another particle . If I look at the motion of the planets as they move through space, the exact same thing occurs. one particle becomes another particle.(only we are so slow , we see a grouping) only when I begin to add up the "occurances of the particle" do I begin to expect a definable order in the universe.So you can be right and wrong at the same time. If you call the perception of the particle in one state positive and the other negative, then you are right. If you say the particle vibrated in order to create a resonant reality, then you are wrong, because motion in a singular particle reality is impossible. ok!, now I've done it . I can't move and I need a theory to create a workable model of the universe. That will have to wait until tomorrow. Night Iseason

Hi Iseas,


In your premise-statements, that:

quote "only when I begin to add up the "occurances of the particle" do I begin to expect a definable order in the universe.So you can be right and wrong at the same time." end-quote

..Do you accept the Model of the formation of Our early-Universe, when:  'Era' (the Basic-particles formed ..is purported to have exist.)?

To say (: Formation of Basic Elements ~ 3 seconds

..Protons and neutrons come together to form the nuclei of simple elements: hydrogen, helium and lithium. It will take another 300,000 years for electrons to be captured into orbits around these nuclei to form stable atoms.)

by way of that?  






AS: in THAT Era, (..of the formation of 'the Basic-elements'...) (our understanding of today's Basic Particle-physics, and fundamental-ideas of the nature of these Particles ..that Science can accept is, laid-out.)?



ferme  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-04-07 06:44:48 --

Hi Ferme

I understand what you are asking , but hesitate to agree or dissagree. Mainly because I haven't enough specific knowledge to judge by. I would be relying on others being absolutely correct in a timeline which they cannot properly determine.

So I would prefer to say that the universe "could have " developed as stated. However , the portion of reality that we can percieve and measure is totally seperate from the concept that I am talking about. (funnily enough , while being absolutely the same).

The timeline of actual events becomes quite unimportant , since every concievable event " could" take place. So , as I said , you can be right and wrong at the same time.

If , In my theory "your reality " was shifted by one degree, You would see differences that would change the parameters you are dealing with.

one way and electrons become slower(closer to the original state) and the other way electrons become the elusive "smaller than the smallest particle"(closer to the new state.)

Imagine the pixel never changes. It is always the same, but the collaboration of events towards one state or another changes what can and will occur. This is as close to an infinate universal loop without actually needing it to go on forever.

In other words , the reality we see is a portion of the change that actually occurred in the universe. The further we look , the more of the change we can see.Once the change has occurred it is fixed in this reality we inhabit (matter) .

The problem I am struggling with is getting a singular entity to move "through the change" which requires it to keep every thing 'real'.The reason it is difficult is in creating a behaviour which is not contradictory.ie big bang motion without a particle moving . The particle must have "anticipated" this and every concievable possibility and somehow got to where the event takes place. (one pixel at a time).

So there is a difference that i have to make sense of between what we see (motion) and how the particle get's to be everywhere at once. I don't want to take the old road of just putting it outside of laws we need to observe, so I am waiting for inspiration.

Cheers
Iseason

quote: "The timeline of actual events becomes quite unimportant , since every concievable event " could" take place." unquote.


Iseas hi,

I think that the said timeline IS important!

..When an engineer designs a train-engine, there are limits to observe! ..the casting etc .....
Eventually all the parts are put together, and the engine is complete, in a sense!
WELL, a timeline for the universe is like the draught-stage drawing of our train-engine. There are less ways to design it, than we would rather think! We the designer are limited in perspective, and care has to be taken with its wiring, too!


ferme  

--Last edited by saucer on 2008-04-12 13:57:30 --

Hi Ferme
Unfortunately the need to actually move to occupy a different point in space is the problem.Motion can not (even in the first part )be without a medium.

Cheers
Iseason

-




7 March 2008—Physicists at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, report that they have created an analogue to a black hole in their lab. Such a tabletop black hole, made from a length of optical fiber and laser light, may prove invaluable in understanding the characteristics of these exotic astronomical objects, scientists say.

“About three and a half years ago, in August of 2004, I realized that it is possible to use optical fibers to create an analogue of a black hole,” says Ulf Leonhardt, who reported the research today in the journal Science. “It took us a while to do the experiment because it was very hard to get funding.”

Leonhardt’s work is being feted by photonics experts, such as Ian Walmsley at Oxford University, as “breaking new ground” in the field of nonlinear optics.


Black holes are some of the most exotic objects in the universe. They are incredibly dense, with powerful gravitational fields. One of the key characteristics of a black hole is its event horizon—a boundary that demarcates the region inside the black hole where the gravitational field is so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape.

Physicists and astronomers believe that black holes are formed when huge stars collapse in on themselves at the end of their lives. They exist at the centers of galaxies, where they act as giant engines that drive the motion of stars, according to astronomers. However, studying them is extremely difficult, particularly because in astronomy one can study only the information carried by light. In the case of black holes, the absence of light means astrophysicists have to rely on indirect means, such as inferring the presence of black holes by the way their gravity bends light outside their event horizons—a phenomenon scientists call gravitational lensing.

Having access to an artificial black hole in the lab will allow astrophysicists to test predictions made by theorists. Physicists would particularly like to test new theories such as quantum gravity, which seeks to reconcile Einstein’s theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics.

“It is much easier to use these objects for observations instead of their astronomical counterparts,” says Grigori Volovik of Helsinki University of Technology, in Finland, who has found other analogues of cosmological phenomena in laboratory condensed-matter physics.
Photo: Ulf Leonhardt/University of St. Andrews, Scotland

Honeycomb Holes: A hexagonal array of holes runs the length of the fiber giving it properties that let scientists create an artificial event horizon.

To make their event horizon, Leonhardt and colleagues used a titanium sapphire laser and a microstructured optical fiber—one containing a hexagonal arrangement of air-filled holes that ran its length. They first transmitted an ultrashort, intense laser pulse down the optical fiber. The optical fiber is susceptible to nonlinear effects, such that when an intense pulse of light hits the fiber, it changes the physical properties of the fiber. In this case, the first pulse created a distortion that amounted to a change in the fiber’s index of refraction, which moves along with the pulse. The pulse itself was slowed by the distortion. Leonhardt and colleagues then sent a “faster” stream of infrared laser light in pursuit of the first pulse. When the faster-moving second pulse encountered the distortion, it got trapped at its edge and couldn’t break past it. This edge became the fiber’s “event horizon.”

“Light propagating in a moving medium is similar to the light propagating in curved space” such as you would find near a black hole, explains Volovik. So “it is possible to create artificial horizons.”

Following Einstein’s theory of relativity, as light approaches the event horizon, it would slow down immensely and be stretched out; time would also proceed very slowly. Scientists have worked out what this deceleration would look like, and Leonhardt and colleagues say they observed the predicted effects in their optical-fiber event horizon.

Leonhardt and his colleagues hope their artificial event horizon will let experimentalists see whether anything can escape from a black hole. This highly counterintuitive idea was proposed by Stephen Hawking in the 1970s. Hawking applied tenets of quantum mechanics to existing black-hole theory and surmised that black holes are not black at all. Instead, they emit light—which has since come to be known as Hawking radiation.
Photo: Ulf Leonhardt/University of St. Andrews, Scotland

The next step: A new laser experiment will test for signs of Hawking radiation from the fiber's event horizon.

Hawking radiation is possible because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, which maintains that you cannot pin down all the physical properties of a particle without any uncertainty. When it comes to a vacuum—empty space—this leads to a startling idea: a vacuum is not a vacuum at all but rather teeming with virtual particles and their antiparticles, which exist for a fraction of a second before coming together and annihilating one another. It seems nature doesn’t mind at all, as long as the particles exist for an amount of time less than the uncertainty level allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

In the highly unusual area around a black hole’s event horizon, however, things occasionally go wrong, and a virtual particle or antiparticle falls below the event horizon and cannot escape to recombine with its counterpart. The other virtual particle is forced to live longer than the uncertainty principle allows, in effect becoming a real particle. Enough of this happens near a black hole’s event horizon, Hawking postulated, that a black hole is not completely black but glows instead.

However, Hawking radiation is too weak to measure using telescopes because it is drowned out by the cosmic microwave background—the dim remnant radiation from the Big Bang that created the universe.


“These analogues are the best hope we have of testing the assumptions behind Hawking’s predictions of black-hole thermal radiation,” says William Unruh, a theoretical physicist at the University of British Columbia who is credited with pioneering the idea of using a moving medium as an analogue of the event horizon. “Leonhardt’s work is definitely a promising step along the road, and it would be wonderful if such quantum thermal radiation from a black hole could be realized.”

That is indeed what the team at St. Andrews is trying to do. “The next step is to try to measure the quantum effects,” Leonhardt says. “We’ve started already.”

About the Author

Saswato R. Das is a writer based in New York City. He recently wrote about a new extreme ultraviolet laser and military experiments in the Van Allen belts.



-

_



Extended Physics links to other Sites:

http://www2.andrews.edu/~claudine/Club/ExtendedLinks.html


_