It seems that one can translate physics into more everyday language. The patterns under mathematical disguise turn out to be very familiar?
The reference book used here is "Penguin Dictionary Of Physics. 2nd Ed."
I propose that the term "magnetic" might be regarded as "specification". When two categories overlap, a definition is relatively specified in the overlap.
I propose that the term "electric" might be regarded as "generalisation". A category might be regarded as a generalisation.
I propose that "time" involves a reference space (such as a clock or vibration or pendulum swing) that is self-referent (the repeat stationariness of the clock-center, the re-tracing of the supposed same-path by a vibrating atom or swinging pendulum.
So "time" involves a generalisation (the reference space is like a nearby category) and a specification (a detailing of the reference space by self-referring): I may call "time" "gen.spec."
How to operate like a quantum computer: when ever you see "generalisation" (gen.) meeting another generalisation: it's like two categories that could overlap: if you can see them again they must be a little different so may have overlapped so might call this: "specification".
At least from a math point of view: if you consertve your definitions through repeats; you get a count of overlap possibilities. So "gen. gen." becomes "spec." perhaps.
Similarly: a specification meeting another specification gives a mathematically defined generalisation possibility. Not that they had to become mixed; but if you can see them again there is a mixing of your definition of them and your counting of them: they could have mixed.
The technique is: translate physics into "generalisations" and "specifications"; cancel coupled gens. into "spec".; and cancel coupled "spec.s" into "gen".
I propose that "distance" involves a generalisation (between here and there) which might be called "uncertainty". But two distances could be overlapped so create a relatively certain space (a specification).
I propose that "distance per time" is thus "generalisation / specific generalisation"
so the gen./gen. becomes one; times the specification gives "specification".
I guess this is like algebra but more general.
Quantum algebra? Where the algebraic terms are reduced to a minimal definition in terms of meeting: categories intersect: gives "specification";
intersections collide: generalisation (or category).
This fits how words are defined. Maxwell's equations use "div." and "curl": appear to be translateable into how words are defined by broadening and narrowing categories.
O.K.: "distance/time" I found as "specification.
So "speed" is "specification".
So it implies relativity: two categories intersecting.
I propose "directed distance" involves a specified distance by using not just A and B but C; so you use 3 items to give "direction" (such as "from A to B in C direction",
So "directed distance" becomes "specific generalisation".
Velocity: "directed distance/ time" becomes "spec.gen/ spec.gen" which becomes "one".
Mass: I propose that "mass" might be regarded as "uncertainty".
Light: I propose that "light" be regarded as "time group juggled" or "comparison".
Charge: I propose that "charge" be regarded as "bias".
Spin: I propose that "spin" be regarded as relative counter-bias say.
Coupling: this looks like neutral bias.
Observed bias cancelling: spin
Observed bias not cancelling: charge
Observed bias uncertain: couple
spin + charge: mixed: colour charge?
charge + coupling: mixed: isospin?
colour charge + isospin: mixed: dark matter-energy?
Force: freedom surface
(Other detail of sub-atomic particles and forces placed elsewhere. Some of above not checked for accuracy).
Translating Physics into everyday experience:
Consider: a supermarket contains certain items.
You could describe ONE supermarket in terms of the LIST of items it sells. (Items in the supermarket).
You could describe ONE shopping list in terms of the LIST of supermarkets that it can be used at.
(Supermarkets in the shopping list).
A shopping list could define or partly define a supermarket in terms of items they have.
A supermarket list could define or partly define a shopping list in terms of supermarkets the list could be used at.
You could have people deciding what to put on their shopping list.
Now:
(References to "Penguin Dictionary Of Physics")
"PERMEABILITY" is "the ratio of the magnetic flux density in a body or medium to the external magnetic field strength inducing it" becomes:
ratio of: the shopping list defined by available stock in a supermarket; produced by discussion on what markets are thought to have; TO the external debate (how decide what each shop has) inducing it.
That is: "what lists that a shop can supply RATIO TO list what they should supply".
permeability: background definition criteria
That is: the ratio of the freedom in defining what the supermarket could supply TO the built in definition of what the supermarket can supply.
"Built in definition" is "specification strength" or "external magnetic field strength".
The ratio of "magnetic flux" (specification freedom) or freedom in defining what the supermarket could supply; to the built in definition inducing that freedom of definition (thus laying down the broad parameters in which to decide on the definition) is the "permeability".
This suggests that "permeability" is the internally configured limits in freedom of defining so defined only by the law of non-contradiction.
This fits with certain of Dr. Richard Stafford's findings.
PERMEABILITY OF FREE SPACE:
"sometimes called the magnetic constant" :
I propose can call this "specification constant" or "background definition criteria of free space".
Presumably its where our definitions of "free space" and of "magnetism" might interfere?
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY:
would be "built in limits on options"/"how you see the limits on options".
DIAMAGNETISM:
the book says "a property of substances that have a negative magnetic susceptibility, thus the relative permeability is less than that of a vacuum and less between 0 and 1. Diamagnetism is caused by the motion of electrons in atoms around the nucei."
I suggest:
"Diamagnetism" is like "two people talking"; "motion of electrons in atoms about the nucleus" becomes "generalisation of modifications of views in atoms about nucleus of a discussion".
"Diamagnetism" like this is "caused by conversation".
If the relative permeability is less than that of a vacuum; its say like "not talking in a vacuum".
If relative permeability exceeds unity the book says it is "paramagnetic".
The unpaired electrons in paramagnetic substances might be regarded as "stuff in reserve" in a debate?
PERMITIVITY:
book: "The ratio of the electric displacement in a dielectric medium to the applied and electric field strength" may become: "the bias say of generalisation generalised in an insulator, to external influence strength".
That is: "resistance to debate leaning one way".
So of course (book:) "It indicates the degree to which the medium can resist the flow of electric charge". (That is: resist flow of generalisation bias)
Its a question of permitting.
PERMITIVITY OF FREE SPACE:
book: "sometimes called the electric constant" and equals "1/(c squared times permeability of free space).
Suggest:
1/speed of speed times speed of speed times background definition criteria of free space
so: 1/spec.spec.spec.spec.background definition criteria of free space
so: 1/gen.gen. background criteria
so: 1/spec. background criteria
so: 1 divided by specified background criteria in defining free space
so: internal agreement through the law of non-contradiction on defining free space.
The result shows again Dr. Richard Stafford
result of physics laws as constrained by the law of non-contradiction and number (and number reduces to "two" so "agreement"). So the law depends on "being" (honesty) and "letting be" (reaching an agreement): as you measure, so you are measured it seems.
RELATIVE PERMITIVITY:
I could call this "relative resistance to external influence": "permission of a forum of discussion" to "permission of free space".
Perhaps the room to move in this forum is the "insulating property of this forum" from external influence: so the "dielectric constant"?
But in reality the room to move can change as we discuss. Only an assumed fixed geometry of rigid numbers might give impression of a very restrictive law?
SUSCEPTIBILITY
1.Magnetic: book says: relative permeability minus one.
So: built-in limits on options/how you see those limits MINUS ONE
gives:
how you see your limits divided by built in limits:
gives specification susceptibility (magnetic susceptibility). As it describes your willingness to re-consider your built-in limits view say.
So: a specified susceptibility?
a magnetic susceptibility?
Freedom around those limits, or to change those limits.
This is again apparantly freedom in the law of non-contradiction?
2.Electric: book says: relative permittivity minus one.
So: electric susceptibility: relative resistance to external influence MINUS ONE:
So: relative non-resistance to external influence so generalised non-resistance? So: electric susceptibility!
FOURIER TRANSFORM:
book:
"a function expressed in terms of one variable x, may be related to a function of a different variable, s, in a manner that finds wide application in physics.
F(s) = integral from minus infinity to plus infinty of f(x) exp (-2 pi i xs)dx
Suggest:
pi as freedom to meet
i as square root minus one so "overlap or swappability say"
exp as "self referring opportunity say"
"integral from plus to minus infinity"
as "sum from beginning to ending".
So equation is:
Fourier transform of s is self-reference via taking away 2 views of free meeting of overlap of x of s of change of x
which gives:
two sets: x and s; overlap; in the overlap is a change in x. Two views of any way this can happen?
This gives an "s" view of the changing x in s-meets x space because 2 views were taken away of the changing x: and this is how s self-refers in its Fourier transform?
The Fourier transform of s is sum from beginning to ending of group view of x self referring via s view of 2 views taken away from x changing in some of s-overlap-x space.
Apparently:
Fourier transform of s is "the room to move that x has in s".
ELECTRIC FLUX:
I get: re-grouping generalisation;
that is: generalisation in generalising generalisation
Quantizing elecricity by space?
Converting electricity to area?
MAGNETIC FLUX:
I get: re-grouping magnetism:
that is: specifying specific specification.
Quantizing magnetism by space?
Converting magnetism to area?
MAGNETIC FLUX DENSITY:
book: "it is a vector quantity whose magnitude at a point is proportional to the magnetic field strength and whose direction at that point is that at the magnetic field. It indicates the strength of a magnetic field, often in terms of the effects of the field."
Suggest:
force magnetic: a supermarket specifies a list of goods.
"At right angles to this force magnetic": "a list of goods specifies a supermarket"?
In this direction (of a list of goods specifying a supermarket) a re-grouping of the specification (so swapping amongst lists within the list?) (so UNIT of room to move) passes through UNIT area (unit swappability?)(MIX zone?).
A supermarket specifies a list of goods whose direction at that point is that of the magnetic (specification) field and magnitude proportional to the magnetic field strength (referring partly to book).
Obviously as "room to move" IS a unit area of the space where there is swappability in market specifies goods list and goods list specifies market?
I got a bit confused that last subject.
-dolphin |