Theoretical physics

I've been watching videos of Richard Feynman recently, and it appears he's inspired some extraneous thoughts on theoretical physics. I had an interesting train of thought and wanted to put it into writing before it disappears like most of my thoughts..

I'll preface this by saying I've only been exposed to details of simple physics, no fancy quantum mechanics - I'm not familiar with equations of Einstein's, etc.

Time is interesting in that it seems to be treated as a constant by physics. This mystical constant that we measure in seconds, minutes, or what have you. Energy, mass, etc undergo changes through this constant field of time. This doesn't jibe with me, what makes time more constant than any other property of the universe.

What is the essence of time, how can we redefine it? How can we recognize time? We can count revolutions of stars, planets.. or oscillations of a cesium atom. This I find interesting, we can depend on oscillations of an atom. So a given number of oscillations corresponds to a given amount of time in seconds. The atom's rate of oscillation is tied directly to this mystical thing we call time.

So let's consider instead of time, only atomic oscillation. Let's look at how time, or rather these oscillations, relate to the other given dimension of the universe, space. We know that all mass in space has inherent inertia, such that it will traverse a given distance during a given number of oscillations. This will not change unless some outside interaction occurs - a force affects the mass. Basic Newton stuff.

But instead of tying the traversal of distance to time, we are only considering the traversal of distance to atomic oscillation. In this regard, I see significance in the fact that all atoms of all matter in the universe, or at least in the local region of space, emit electromagnetic fields in sync with their rate of oscillation. This is the only known link between these oscillations and the inertial mass.

So perhaps we can assume the rate of electromagnetic oscillation is tied to the rate of inertial velocity. Remember, inertial velocity is maintained without any effort, it is free movement, so to speak. Now I can't help wonder, what if we were to introduce a local electromagnetic field of sufficient strength that it would overpower, so to speak, the electromagnetic fields of the inertial mass. Say we attach a device to the mass with giant electromagnetic coils. Now let's say we generate oscillations with this device, but the rate of oscillation is accelerated with respect to the oscillations of atoms.

Now we have a problem, we can only accelerate this rate up to a point, where it becomes too fast to be created with our limited technology. How about we then set a maximum rate, and at this frequency we halve, or divide by some extent, the frequency to a lower, minimum frequency, and continue the acceleration. We could perform this transition more smoothly if we had two separate frequencies operating simultaneously and fade their amplitude in and out as they approach the changeover frequency.

I am curious if such a situation, in which this device was attached to an inertial mass, would cause the velocity of the mass to accelerate relative to inertial velocity.

See what a little Richard Feynman can do to ya.

the zeroth place

numbers are weird when it comes to how we name them.

there is no zeroth place, but the way we name our numbers, there almost should be. ..let me explain.

it's best if i start with how i got on this train of thought. today is 1/1/2010. brand new decade. i asked myself, how many decades have i been through? let's see.. the 80's, the 90's and the 00's. that's three decades. so this is my fourth decade.

but wait - 4 decades?! how can this be my fourth decade? each decade is 10 years! that means i've gone through 30 years and this is my 40th. but im not even 30 years old, let alone 40.

.. kind of get it?

i think the confusion arises because of the digit used in the tens column. for instance, the number 8. it's really 08. the tens are 0. but why? does 8 fall under the zeroth ten? there is no zeroth. why not, 18, as in the number 8 of the 1st ten.

interesting.

if we follow through, '99' is 89, but then 90 would be '100' ? no we still have one more ten to count, but we need to represent it with one digit. so let's invent a digit, A. so 'A0' is 90. then we get to A9, then 100. hmm, but 100 shouldn't be '100'. it should be '110'. since we're on the first ten of the hundred. but wait, this is our second 100. so it should be '210'. and really, instead of starting with 0, we should start with 1. after all, that's what we do, we start with 1. 1 is the 1st digit. argh!

maybe 100 should be the highest number expressed in two digits. so we get to A9, then it's AA. so to recap, we count like:
1,2..,9,A
21,22,..29,2A,
..
91,92,..99,9A,
A1,A2,..A9,AA,
then 211,212,..219,21A..
hmm

not sure this is better. now when you have one hundred dollars, you have AA dollars. hehe. which i guess makes sense. i mean A = 10, so AA is ten 10's, or 100. but instead of saying you have one hundred, you say you have ten tens.

but then two hundred, that would be 2AA.. two ten tens. hehe
and if you were counting money, say a dollar at a time, then when you got to 2AA, you can say 'thats my 2nd hundred' and it shows in the number, rather than 200 which is just 2 zeros.

ok now i sound silly to myself. hmm ah ok a good test. does this new system improve the original confusing situation?

let's see, three decades past, working on the fourth. so 1-A past, 21-2A, 31-3A.. that's three decades. working on 41-4A.. blah! still sounds like im forty. hmm however, 41 in that number system is actually 31.. so it's accurate.. since i would be turning '3A' and then '41' soon in that number system.

but in the normal number system.. 1-9 past, 10-19, 20-29.. working on 30-39.. bah wait now the normal numbers sound right. hrm.


numbers are weird.

test

this is a test. i'm just trying out this here blogger. haven't been here in a while. perhaps it'd be simpler to blog here than muff with my current blog. hmm. picture?

ah so there i am with the bobcat.













let's try another:
teh rebar

test2

Just testing. Move along, people.

Numero Uno

Being as this is my first blog, I would like to grant all readers a pardon from any unbecoming opinions formed following interpretation of the thoughts laid herein.

Cheers!