Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Resonator Circuits and Imaginary Numbers

Resonator Circuits and Imaginary Numbers

l0k1 - 26-11-2012 at 12:27

In the last few days I came up with an idea of using complete graph geometry with resonator circuits in order to produce some kind of possible effect involving what I am calling 'Negative Resistance'. I will briefly explain what this involves:

The mathematical formulas relating to energy, specifically the inverse square law, Ohm's law and Einstein's relativity formula all involve multiplication or division or exponents. Real numbers have the characteristic of producing a positive result only when two negative factors are combined, and all of the formulas I just referred to above will produce negative numbers if you replace the numbers with imaginary numbers. For example, the speed of light factor, when mirrored into imaginary numbers, produces a negative, and a negative mass factor (imaginary) will produce a negative energy factor.

Anyway, the effect of imaginary components on these formulas is obviously contrary to the third law of thermodynamics. I am in the process at the moment of specifying the design parameters, and attached is a file that has the beginnings of the specifications of geometry and induction.

I wasn't sure if there was an appropriate place to put this in the forum, but it's my view that the application of complex numbers to a lot of physics formulas that are presently effectively calculated with zero factors on the imaginary component will open up a vast field of possibilities for reactions that reverse the normal thermodynamic equilibrium. Since chemical reactions are entirely governed by these formulas, if it becomes possible to work out how to put imaginary factors in to the formula then results that are the direct opposite to normal will become possible.

Attachment: The Verloren Singularity.pdf (39kB)
This file has been downloaded 589 times

watson.fawkes - 26-11-2012 at 14:41

Quote: Originally posted by l0k1

[...] in order to produce some kind of possible effect involving what I am calling 'Negative Resistance'.

Negative resistance is already understood as a real phenomenon, for example in tunnel diodes and arc discharge tubes. See Wikipedia on negative resistance. Go read up on this and come back with a report about whether you've reinvented the wheel or not. If not, pick a different name, one that doesn't already mean something.

Quote: Originally posted by l0k1

[...] a negative mass factor (imaginary) will produce a negative energy factor.

Anyway, the effect of imaginary components on these formulas is obviously contrary to the third law of thermodynamics.

And also in contradiction to the second law. Substance with negative mass is called "exotic matter" in the general relativity world and is the basis for papers on things like wormholes, warp drives, and other things that don't exist.

franklyn - 26-11-2012 at 14:51

Don't mind watson.fawkes at all. He has no imagination ,
and really hates those who do. Seek a little mentoring
and develop your premise more fully. Never can tell
where it may lead.

.

smaerd - 26-11-2012 at 14:57

I like your ideas I'm just not completely sure I follow(not a rare thing). If you can maybe describe what you are saying a bit more, and come up with experiments for it. I'd love to read more about it.

watson.fawkes - 26-11-2012 at 15:03

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

Don't mind watson.fawkes at all. He has no imagination ,
and really hates those who do. Seek a little mentoring
and develop your premise more fully. Never can tell
where it may lead.

I can, however, tell where it will not lead. I don't need to imagine that this "Imaginary numbers! Fuck yeah!" leads nowhere, because I've already seen it lead nowhere. Perhaps, franklyn, you would be ideally suited as an editor of the Encyclopedia of Crank Physics.

Edit: Typo.

[Edited on 2012-11-27 by watson.fawkes]

tetrahedron - 26-11-2012 at 16:41

Quote: Originally posted by l0k1

The mathematical formulas relating to energy, specifically the inverse square law, Ohm's law and Einstein's relativity formula all involve multiplication or division or exponents. Real numbers have the characteristic of producing a positive result only when two negative factors are combined, and all of the formulas I just referred to above will produce negative numbers if you replace the numbers with imaginary numbers. For example, the speed of light factor, when mirrored into imaginary numbers, produces a negative, and a negative mass factor (imaginary) will produce a negative energy factor.

if you arbitrarily introduce imaginary numbers into a pseudo-riemannian manifold (such as spacetime) you'll change its geometry. assuming you succeed in working out the details of the extension in a 'backward compatible' way, the extension may allow for more mathematical leeway in describing interacting phenomena (e.g. the interplay between fundamental forces), and such quantities as negative energy may take on at least a speculative meaning. such descriptions involve the specification of general 'symmetries' of the theory (e.g. rotations are the symmetries of euclidean space, which in turn are generalized by Lorentz transformations in relativity, and so on). higher-dimensional theories are currently the favored approach in the development of a plausible theory of everything.

[Edited on 27-11-2012 by tetrahedron]

12AX7 - 26-11-2012 at 18:00

The attachment shows a diagram of a pentagon, with all diagonals shown, and some special angles listed. And, for some reason, needlessly long decimal expansions given for certain irrational ratios, labeled "Energy Transfer with zero distance" or such. It's only one page, with no explanation given, here or in the document.

One might suppose a pentagonal coil geometry is implied, but this is hardly clear. Depending on coil size and coupling method, one might perhaps obtain a useful bandpass filter arrangement, but alas, I suspect this isn't the intended goal.

Such incoherent ramblings are typical of those who use terms from diverse fields without knowing what they mean: "negative resistance", "resonator circuits", "imaginary numbers", "relativity formula", thermodynamic equilibrium" and so on.

Very sceptical, yes, but I'm still interested in knowing more if l0k1 would like to fill in these gaps.

Tim

woelen - 27-11-2012 at 02:38

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Negative resistance is already understood as a real phenomenon, for example in tunnel diodes and arc discharge tubes.

What you are talking about is not true negative resistance. The resistance (V/I) still is positive, but dV/dI is negative. The latter quantity sometimes incorrectly is called "resistance", but it is not. Indeed a discharge through a gas is a nice example of this phenomenon.

True negative resistance also exists, but such components only can be active components, which require the use of an external power supply. A simple example of a linear negative resistance can be obtained by taking a high input impedance amplifier, which does a 2x amplification of the applied voltage and then you connect a normal resistor R between the input and the output of the amplifier. The observed resistance at the point where the input voltage is applied will be -R.

All of this has nothing to do with imaginary numbers though. What l0k1 refers to seems more like applying imaginary numbers to formulae for power (such as P = mv^2 / 2 for a mass m moving at velocity v) or for formulae for metrics (e.g. measures of distances in the form x^2+y^2+z^2 or roots thereof).

phlogiston - 27-11-2012 at 03:46

Hey, by all means pursue it, who knows it may lead to imaginary energy that we can use for imaginary cars. Perhaps by i^2 = -1, it would inverse the real global warming problem.

l0k1 - 27-11-2012 at 03:53

well, that's a lot of responses already...

regarding the geometry of the spacetime manifold, talking about the particular shape of it being already known with certainty is nonsense. logically speaking if one knows the underlying mathematics of a phase space you can do things with it that clearly nobody has achieved yet.

for example, where are the circuits that improve when you give them a goodly dose of nonlinearity? most circuitry burns or at least ceases to function properly.

the geometric diagram figures, which are the sine of the angle next to it, are there are for the induction pulses. i haven't finished calculating the degree of induction transfer. each of the angles you can see have arrows to indicate the path of current, and as you can see on all of them, they have a common vector. the induction is not AC, it is just single pulses that propagate through the network where there is a common vector. there will be diodes on every coil to stop back emf.

the device does not work on AC, i haven't shown the full diagram of this yet, because i haven't finished the design but it follows the geometry of a 5 point complete graph with every path a coil which can only run in one direction, i'm not sure if it should be clockwise but the outer paths are 360 degrees phase, the inner path rotates 5 times as far as the outer.

since i haven't actually posted the diagram of the circuit yet, i guess i haven't really presented enough information for anyone to really evaluate.

but yes, the insight is that power functions and multipliers in equations relating to power produce only positive resistance, positive mass and entropy when the standard rule in mathematics about multiplying or dividing two negatives always flipping the sign of the answer to positive.

there has been many people over the years who have likewise attempted to define a balancing opposite to the expanding, dissipating pattern of energy, a converging, focusing, regenerative force. there has been some interesting but mostly useless results discovered also.

the one thing that makes me sure i need to continue to explore this and make myself 10,000 nonlinear DC resonator circuits to find the one that turns into a sink for dissipating energy that is on the other side of the third law of thermodynamics - is that nobody has ever considered the idea of electric 'current' as being a phenomena that operates on the induction of torsion in conductors. instead of a model involving little hot electrons bouncing around like crazy, atoms have magnetic moments, and these magnetic moments line up in a twist along a conductor, and perform work when they operate in pairs on the opposite sides of a component.

for example, a capacitor doesn't really 'store' charge, rather the DC current induces electrostatic charge, and when there is sufficient electrostatic polarisation the two twisting DC 'current' pulses are able to unwind and the current reverses on each side. resistors are made of materials that have a geometry that has lots of cross linking and is low in linearity. the torsion of the electric current requires a material that is more linear or polarisable than not, and resistors are to some degree less polarisable, but they are not insulating.

something that may not be immediately obvious is that this converging counter-force to linear electromagnetic force has a negative temporal component. think of everything that electricity can do, then reverse the time sequence. instead of pushing, these forces 'pull' matter, instead of radiating, this 'imaginary space' electricity converges. as everyone knows, thanks to newton, every force has an opposite. you can propel matter in two ways, you can push it forward with radiating force, or you can pull it from the front using convergent force. if you do both at once in theory the cost should be zero, if you can link the forces on the opposite side of the circuit loop in question.

anyway, i will be continuing to develop this hypothesis and the device i have sketched out will be built and tested and i will publish results as i get them.

l0k1 - 27-11-2012 at 04:00

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

Hey, by all means pursue it, who knows it may lead to imaginary energy that we can use for imaginary cars. Perhaps by i^2 = -1, it would inverse the real global warming problem.

hehe yes, that's the goal. i know it probably sounds ridiculous at first blush but it's pretty well established in physics that at least a number of phenomena are very much based on complex numbers, and adding the imaginary component to power systems will permit the reverse of the third law of thermodynamics. like i say, power formulas do not permit the negative mass that is implied by observations that can only be explained by 'dark energy'. the observations of the dark energy force on celestial bodies on the intergalactic scale. as i have noted, the application of complex number mathematics to einstein's relativity directly posits the existence of negative mass, which is what 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' imply.

Wizzard - 27-11-2012 at 05:58

While I took calc and started number theory in college, any time somebody mentions imaginary numbers, I always think of things like "the amount of money in my bank account"

l0k1 - 27-11-2012 at 06:41

I am just about to do the math on the induction paths, and to begin this I have created a map that shows every positive and negative DC path and shows all of the other coils that are less than 90 degrees different in their vector (the arrows). All four in this diagram occur at the same time but need to be calculated separately before summation... although then again i could average the positive and negative EMF resultant vectors, but the result is the same so i'd prefer to start with the isolated form.

Each of the pale lines indicates some degree of induced current, the grey arrows are more than 90 degrees out of phase. Anyway, just keeping the discussion updated with more of the details that I haven't explained yet. I will probably draw up the circuit diagram first so everyone can see exactly what circuit I am talking about.

watson.fawkes - 27-11-2012 at 06:44

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

Standard usage is indeed that local regions of negative dV/dI are called negative resistance. And in practice it acts that way as well. A typical use is to use a DC bias in the center of a negative resistance region and to limit the amplitude excursion so that it doesn't leave that region. This is how Gunn diodes are used to construct microwave oscillators, for example.

l0k1 - 27-11-2012 at 07:39

here is a rough circuit diagram. i know it's not very tidy and doesn't use quite standard notation for the coils. DC current is introduced at the point marked by the red and blue DC pole symbols on the top left. In my first prototype I will be using LED's which will give a direct visual indication of the flow of current after the input is ceased. The diodes in series with the capacitors will stop the back EMF when the power input is ceased.

oops! I have drawn the diodes backwards. I'll flip it horizontally. i have got the inner paths going backwards too. dear me. Ok, I've fixed it now, and added red arrows that indicate the direction of the magnetic fields of the coils.

Oh, by the way, I actually do know what 'imaginary numbers' and 'resonance' and all those other terms mean. Strictly speaking you cannot have negative resistance under Ohm's law, as I explained, negative current and negative voltage still result in a positive resistance. Er... that is to say, under the conditions of negative voltage and current. Obviously if you have one negative and one positive the result is negative. I am not interested in this because it does exist, as far as I know. Technically speaking current cannot be negative because it represents a magnitude and does not possess a vector in any direction.

I am not formally trained, per se, this is correct, but I did not go much beyond the most advanced levels in highschool - physics, chemistry, and I did all the calculus and trigonometry and not just that I also learned matrix mathematics and after learning how to generate mandelbrot sets I pestered one of my teachers who was doing some pascal programming to show the class fractal mathematics but he refused. I suppose it may have been because of the imaginary numbers.

I know that I have not been expressing the ideas coherently. My problem is that I can see the patterns and the characteristics of the phenomena I am talking about in my mind's eye, but visual information is very much 'all at once' and has to be articulated systematically to be understood. There is not a single person in history who has made serious breakthroughs in physics-related science who did not share this ability to watch simulations in their mind and who were also at first not well received.

Obviously the thing that started all this off was number theory and networks. The geometry the device I have picked the 5 point graph to start with because it is the smallest number with a full properly radial pathway - the pentagram has a 360 degree path around the edges and a contrary path around the centre which rotates 5 full circles.

I don't know if I am entirely 'reinventing the wheel' here at all, to be honest until I determine the mathematics it's still just a hunch.

I have been attempting to discover something new in physics since 1999, and in the intervening time certain elements of my ideas have mutated radically. I actually started out with the question, 'what if the universe is based on some kind of fundamental particle which is constantly increasing in number and from this is being caused the phenomena we see'. The first part came from the idea of gravity being caused instead of by some kind of 'attractive' force, but from a circular reciprocal differential, greater distance producing a greater force, so anything closer than 180 degrees of the circle is prone to moving towards its counterpart to come to equilibrium. The precise model for this has gradually changed as I have revised and expanded the model over the years, and this current set of ideas have even suggested that there is actually two halves to the universe that interplay, involving particles that move backwards in time (and look that up, some of einstein's special relativity formulas have solutions in negative and positive time domains).

Anyway, I will be continuing on with this but I have the basics of the circuit design set out now, and over the next few days I will be doing the math to see if the pictures in my head line up with the math that seems to be its basis.

[Edited on 27-11-2012 by l0k1]

[Edited on 27-11-2012 by l0k1]

DerAlte - 27-11-2012 at 12:41

I have rarely read such unmitigated crap anywhere. It is a conflation of vague nonsense on topology, thermodynamics, mathematics and electrical theory by one who ably demonstrates he understands none of the above. WF and 12AX7 are on the ball.

A sentence ramdomly taken (LMAO):
make myself 10,000 nonlinear DC resonator circuits to find the one that turns into a sink for dissipating energy that is on the other side of the third law of thermodynamics

Third Law? (Nernst’s Theorem). Better make sure you understand the first and second before embarking on the third.

I can answer one question, however:
I wasn't sure if there was an appropriate place to put this in the forum
There is. You should have posted it in Detritus. Maybe Woelen will oblige…

Der Alte

franklyn - 27-11-2012 at 16:15

Quote: Originally posted by l0k1

I know that I have not been expressing the ideas coherently.
to be honest until I determine the mathematics it's still just a hunch.

Pseudo science is often just poorly expressed in the accepted academic
standard not that there may be anything faulty in the logic. The reason
you are exasperating respondents is that you have yet to express your
idea in a sequential manner such that anyone can understand it. I don't.

Something that can be described abstractly and even represented as a drawing
can be entirely out of the realm of physical reality , as for example an optical
illusion. Superluminal objects are just geometric artifacts as for example two
waves crossing , their point of intersection moves faster than the velocity of
either one. The mathematical solution to the problem of plotting both location
and particle momentum in quantum mechanics is to suppose ( because one can )
there is an unseen dimension which allows the real object , the particle , to
travel unseen and therefore unmeasured. This is the approach that theoretical
physics has taken so that the current areas of investigation invoke up to 11
dimensions. It's easy to get lost.

In the beginning before scientists , natural philosophers used clever rhetoric
and logic to ascertain the truth of things. The ' proofs ' were convincing but
not necessarily right. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno

The force between two charged particles moving in two directions at right angles
to each other violates Newtonian definitions of force and reaction.
See illustration of this here => http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/lorentz/index.htm
If one just takes the interaction between two short segments of a circuit the
calculated result is 'A' affects 'B' but 'B' has no effect on 'A'. Extrapolating to an
actual circuit the analogy fails because a circuit is a closed loop and integration
of it using calculus corresponds with the actual observed effect. A tank of
compressed gas behaves the same way because all possible force vectors
act in opposed direction and cancel. Why the tank just sits there unmoving.
A rocket engine however does move because it is pushed by the pressure
from the contained compressed gas acting unilaterally against it. The force
vector here has no counterforce as does the sealed tank.

The implication that reactionless force exists as indicated by fundamental
mathematical computation is so compelling that experimental confirmation
or refutation has been sought. In a one turn conductive loop simply termed
Helmholtz coil , diagrammatically if one removes one quarter segment , some
how retaining an induction , calculations show that the entire semicircular unit
should move away from the opening. This was actually attempted using a
resonant antenna , without confirming the hypothesis. In practice no
reactionless force has been observed.

I researched articles in Physics journals going back to 1955 which is the first
I could find that discussed this , there has been very little subsequently devoted
to it , perhaps a total of 30 journal articles over the years. Academicians don't
like what they have no ready answer for and dismissively evade such things ,
preferring the familiar and accepted consistent working understanding ignoring
self evident deficits in the conventional view.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=8611#p...

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws :

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible ,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible ,
he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture
a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

.

12AX7 - 27-11-2012 at 16:18

Quote: Originally posted by l0k1

for example, where are the circuits that improve when you give them a goodly dose of nonlinearity? most circuitry burns or at least ceases to function properly.

Could you explain the basis for this statement?

You're talking about an awful lot of things together, so for clarity, I just want to slow down and single out individual concepts for the moment.

What kind of circuits, and what kind of nonlinearities, are you imagining when you say it "burns"?

A simple example, the venerable Wien bridge oscillator (which got Hewlett-Packard started) is famously improved with the addition of a nonlinear lightbulb. In the better part of a century's history of this oscillator, I doubt any have caught fire.

The biggest problem with parsing your statement is, nonlinearity is an abstract concept. A circuit is a physical entity. You can't mix physical and nonphysical concepts.

Tim

watson.fawkes - 27-11-2012 at 21:42

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

The force between two charged particles moving in two directions at right angles
to each other violates Newtonian definitions of force and reaction.
See illustration of this here => http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/lorentz/index.htm
If one just takes the interaction between two short segments of a circuit the
calculated result is 'A' affects 'B' but 'B' has no effect on 'A'.

Look, if you want to defend the fringe, fine with me, but at least have the good sense not to defend such things as the page cited, which is blatantly wrong. What's wrong here is to assume the Newtonian rule, which is about instantaneous action at a distance, applies to moving charges, which has a force that propagates only at finite speed. Full analysis requires classical electrodynamics (not just its special cases) and is best understood with the perspective of Lorentz transformations. The "missing force" here is found by understanding that the E and B fields have non-zero energy densities and that there's transient wave activity associated with moving charges.

Also, see "lifters" in the URL. Why didn't I notice that first? You got me there.

franklyn - 29-11-2012 at 03:33

@ watson.fawkes

Now that was elucidating

There's a man with an open mind. One can feel the breeze from here.
Before he speaks , he warns you he's about to say something momentous.
Then bats carrying his message to the world fly out of the caverns of his head.

If you were halfway to a fool I could post and cite references , but knowing
your sneering disregard for academic contradiction of your dogma

" there's good reason to distrust anybody who can't make a short argument
in their own words about a specific subject."
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=12414&...

I will just remind you that science does not need to be defended , it stands on
it's own merits , contrary to your demented supremacist ideology biased science.
Reason hurts the head that is too small to accomodate it.

Rigorous quantitative test of Biot-Savart-Lorentz forces
Journal of Applied Physics of the American Institute of Physics ,
is peer reviewed , certainly not by yours.
Electromagnetism as a second order effect
Department of Physics & Astronomy , State University of Iowa

Attachment: Here is your transient wave activity.pdf (263kB)
This file has been downloaded 628 times

______________

@ l0k1

I'm sorry that you seem to have been earmarked for "special treatment "
and appears are to be " sent east for resettlement " into Detritus.
There are two kinds of contributors to this forum , those who can add to
the knowledge base and those who only subtract from it.
Regrettably this later kind has veto here.

other knowledge in oblivion

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=5541#p...

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3216#p...

http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/Longitudinal/Slutdok.html

.

watson.fawkes - 29-11-2012 at 06:46

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn

[... blah blah blah ...]

What's blatantly wrong about that page is the reasoning that because the forces aren't identical, that (quoting)

Quote:

In this case, Newton's 3rd law is invalidated.

"Invalidation" is blatantly wrong. The third law of Newton DOES NOT APPLY to the situation given.

I should use smaller words and shorter sentences for you in the future. Thank you for the reminder.

watson.fawkes - 29-11-2012 at 07:02

Quote: Originally posted by l0k1

I don't know if I am entirely 'reinventing the wheel' here at all, to be honest until I determine the mathematics it's still just a hunch.

SPICE is a circuit simulator that's been worked on since the seventies. Linear Technology has a free version of it, including a graphical schematic editor, available as LTSPICE. There are plenty of other free circuit simulators out there.

Put your circuit into the simulator and see what it does.

arsphenamine - 29-11-2012 at 22:20

It occurs to me that the 5 node 4-fold connected circuit might be easier to implement as a trigonal bipyramidal skeleton than as pentagonal planar.