Broken Symmetry

krd

I was thinking about this. I don't have anywhere near enough of a formal maths background to check where my little theory sits in formal theory. I don't think my idea is all that novel, but I have a hand waving take on it.

I think about particles and stuff as a way of helping me get to sleep. Also I chug through science books like a bear trying to play the piano.

I was thinking about symmetry, and relativity, and stuff. If a sphere, is perfectly symmetric in a Euclidean frame. In other moving frames, the sphere is not symmetric. For the sake of argument, I'm going to put a charge around the sphere - in the frame that it's a perfect sphere, the charge density is equal at all points. In other moving frames, that charge density will be seen as asymmetric. In terms of a collision, the energy is carried in the Lorentz contraction. This what I think, I could be wrong.

Back to my charged sphere. I was thinking, what if you allowed an infinite number of frames of reference to view the sphere (no light cones or anything like that - it's dimensions relative to each other). Only in one frame would you have a perfect sphere, in all others the charge density would be asymmetric. If you summed the infinite frames together, then what you'd have would still be asymmetric. And the way I thought about this, is an electron may be perfectly spherical in its' own special frame, but in the frame of a proton, the charge will be asymmetric. So, this is why the hydrogen atom has a positive hole. A point particle may seem to orbit but it's not.

And I was thinking - about using maths I do not have - that when I did my magic summing of the infinite frames, the asymmetry of the charge distribution on my electron sphere, would be Gaussian. So the ideas of an electron being a point source, with a probability, greater or lesser, of being in one place or another are wrong.

And I have no maths to back the idea up. It's something along the lines of spontaneous symmetry breaking..........I think I'll call my mish mash, Relative Symmetry.


I was also thinking about photons. And the same thing. The photon is a sphere - depending on the frame, its' energy is everywhere at once, it can also be concentrated at a single point. And when the wave collapses, it's some kind of catastrophic break in symmetry.

Justin1982

I'm not sure what your saying at all. Can you summarize your point in one sentence?

Maths. If you havent got a mathematical basis for whatever your argument is then your ****ed and very few people can take you seriously.
Hand waving arguments are for politicians.

krd

Justin1982 wrote: »

I'm not sure what your saying at all. Can you summarize your point in one sentence?

I'll try.

Any isotropic volume in space, can only be isotropic in a single frame, in all other frames - to infinity - the volume is asymmetric.

Okay, I think I'm allowed a supplemental sentence. I'm disallowing certain things. the volume is isotropic in an infinite number of frames, but there is a larger infinity where it's asymmetric, so I'm counting the smaller infinity as a single frame. This is kind of a Cantor infinity thing.

Maths. If you havent got a mathematical basis for whatever your argument is then your ****ed and very few people can take you seriously.

I would not advise anyone to ever take me seriously.

Hand waving arguments are for politicians.

And celebrity televisions presenter physicists. Claiming Dirac's equation answers everything about the universe is a bit much.

Justin1982

Ok so your point is that a symmetric volume or any volume for that matter looks different in any frame that is not stationary with respect to the volume?
I think thats more or less what Special Relativity says. Length contraction.

Special relativity has a lot to say about moving charge distributions as well. I think its fairly complete as a theory.

Diracs equation is fairly powerful it has to be said. It more or less explains everything you see except for gravity and some things you dont see like the inside of the nucleus of atoms.

krd

Justin1982 wrote: »

Ok so your point is that a symmetric volume or any volume for that matter looks different in any frame that is not stationary with respect to the volume?
I think thats more or less what Special Relativity says. Length contraction.

It's not quite Special Relativity - but very similar - maybe I'll call it Extra-Special Relativity.

And I think it's mathematically provable. Take a Euclidean frame - within the frame you consider all other possible frames. The frames with infinite dimensions, outnumber the ones with finite dimensions. But their is a hierarchy of the infinities; some infinities are large than others. If you consider all possible infinities, I believe you get a Gaussian curve. .......and when you sum all possible frames, on a sphere - let's call the surface area charge density. In the special summed frame, the charge density is asymmetric - can you see what I'm getting at .

Special relativity has a lot to say about moving charge distributions as well. I think its fairly complete as a theory.

It's a complete theory - for limited cases. It doesn't deal with infinities. And what I'm talking about is stationary frames.

I'm not invalidating SR.