Show all 3 posts from this thread on one page
A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum (http://forum.wolframscience.com/index.php)
- NKS Way of Thinking (http://forum.wolframscience.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=5)
-- The "bit" of Matter (http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?threadid=96)
The "bit" of Matter
The buiding blocks of figures that appear on the computer screen are bits. There are black bits and white bits, and their rules are the simplest, although they can build the most complicated figures.
In physics, figures as complicted as human animals consist of the same building blocks as all other matter. These blocks are bits of negative charge and bits of positive charge. Whereas one may look closely at a screen and see individual bits, the neg and pos bits are so small that one electron contains 4.198 x 10^11 bits.
There is ample evidence for the statements in the above paragraphs. In some nuclear reactions electrons and positrons are emitted. The opposite charges of the electron and the positron cause them to attract each other. The two combine and become a gamma photon. Evidently, the matter of the electron and positron is rearranged and becomes the matter of the photon.
Why then do the books say that positron and electron are annihilated? Because in those days it was believed that a photon must be massless, or else photons would have infinite mass as they moved at speed c.
If the photon had no mass, it had to have its equivalent in kinetic energy. Of course, the kinetic energy is the motion of something that has mass. Therefore it was conceded that the photon had a wee bit of mass and a lot of speed
Sometimes a gamma photon comes close to an atomic nucleus and gets rearranged into an electron and a positron. It was even more complicated when the structure of the photon was pictured as waves of electric and magnetic fields.
It makes sense to conclude that electrons and positrons are made of same matter as photons. The fundamental particle of matter is the bit. The bit is the unit mass. The photon's mass is equal to the number of bits it contains.
The length of a post is limited. You may find the rest of the story at my site.
Re. the following from your website:
The distance between a planet and the earth is determined by the behavior of the planets and other bodies of matter that may be involved. It is not caused by space and time. The cause is the sum of the behaviors of the zillions of bits that make up the solar system.
The effect of the change in distance between bits is instantanious regardless of the length of that distance. There is no messenger. The effect is called gravitation. The strength of gravitation is called the force of gravitation. Nevertheless, that which we call gravitation is the net attraction between bits. That attraction is the difference beween the attractive force and the repulsive force. The attractive force is slightly stronger than the repulsive force.
When two bodies of matter contain as many negative bits as positive bits, there is a net attraction between the bodies, called gravitation. Basically, it is the attraction of unlikes minus the repulsion of likes.
The proposition that gravitational interaction is communicated instantaneously would seem to imply that Euclidean Space must be restored to its pre-relativistic position as axiomatic point of departure for cosmological speculation.
As for the mechanics involved, Newton showed that a spherical body will interact gravitationally as if all the matter therein were located at the body's center-point, with the strength of gravitational interaction decreasing with the inverse square of the distance from any other such body.
There is evidence, however, which suggests that this may not be the whole story - I refer here to a report which I came across while researching relates issues in the 1970s.
Briefly, the evidence concerns observed changes in solar flare velocities, which increase in precise DISCONTINUOUS fashion as the flares move away from the solar surface and, again, as they fall back towards it and NOT countinuously as required by the inverse square of the distance rule alone.
Alas, I have misplaced my notes on the subject matter and have not been able to locate further information on the subject matter.
Perhaps the fundamental bits are quarks and photons. It is difficult to postulate these as the most fundamental, it seems. One fears new subdivisions of quarks and photons may be identified.
Show all 3 posts from this thread on one page
Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.0
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.