[General] Relativistic space, time and field

Mon Nov 2 14:22:05 PST 2015

David:

Yes, the 3D version would suggest one look at vortex-like physics: 

Have a look at On Vortex Particles <http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd> . Co-rotating vortices repel, counter-rotating vortices attract. We don’t talk of spinors for nothing, hydrogen atoms don’t twinkle, magnets don’t shine, and electrons don’t move the way they do because of juju magic. Take a look at the Moebius strip spinor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinor> , think of it as an inner tube, then mentally inflate it to the Williamson/van der Mark electron <http://members.optushome.com.au/walshjj/toroid2.jpg>  with a spin half dipole nature, then animate it like this <http://www.antiprism.com/album/misc/ring_tor1_anim.gif>  then inflate further to the horn torus <http://www.antiprism.com/album/misc/horn_tor1_anim.gif> , then all the way to the spindle sphere torus <http://www.antiprism.com/album/misc/spindle_tor2_anim.gif> . This is the eye of the storm in the middle of the 3D chiral frame-dragged dynamical spinor vortex standing-wave standing-field construct that is the electron or positron. There aren’t two types of radiant fields, there’s two types of forces, linear and rotational, resulting from electromagnetic field interactions. It takes two to tango. The electron is not surrounded by a field of force. The force only occurs when you add another electron. Or positron. Et cetera.  

As for the EM combined solution being fundamental, remember that Minkowski said the field. And see  <https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n397/mode/2up> Jackson: "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμν rather than E or B separately". And also see this picture, drawn by a certain Mr Maxwell <http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/MathematicalClassificationofPhysicalQuantities_Maxwell.pdf> :

The electromagnetic field is not totally different to the  <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/> gravitomagnetic field: “Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity”. Heaviside came up with gravitomagnetism as an analogy of electromagnetism, and he didn’t do that for nothing. 

Regards

JohnD

From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: 02 November 2015 15:32
To: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field

John

I like Minkowski's comment "...the analogy is, however, imperfect." It's a good start towards something more precise, accurate and perfect.

So if the scimitar graphic (EM) results from two types of radiant fields (E,M) , then the next question is whether the result is necessary and sufficient to meet known experimental knowledge. The 2D illustration is not representative in total but an idealistic cross-sectional view. A 3D version would suggest one look at vortex-like physics. 

When one sits down to do the drawings, modeling or simulation of these fields, the E and B fields are treated separately, typically, in COMSOL. to couple the fields closely may  permit insights into the mathematics and physics instead of the clumping of "electromagnetic" fields into one EM may not permit. The scimitar visuals  presented are an example of this. However, they are only an ideal 2D cross-section in a 4D world.

Now, in the case of the photon and the electron, one should topologically determine if E and B are balanced, and to what extent when they are not, what is mechanism for shedding an excess amount of either an E or B imbalance. For the electron and photon, the general assumption is that the E and B field are "balanced" according to a closely coupled set of equations typically Maxwell, although for a rigorous review one should look at Dirac, Schrodinger and Schwinger along with Maxwell extensions suggested by Barrett.

Any system of balance also may have a cyclic nature to it. Zitterbewegung is one such imbalance or asymmetry that is cyclical. So there is a time factor. 

Perhaps we can pursue the parsing of EM into components at a later date. In order to explore the current direction, I'm willing to stipulate the lumped EM solution is sufficient for now. However, I believe that the EM combined solution is not fundamental in nature and lacks rigor.

Best

David

  _____  

From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>  
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Relativistic space, time and field

David:

I didn’t get your email, but I did get the reply from Chip. I must disagree strongly about E and B fields I’m afraid. The electron doesn’t have an electric field or a magnetic field, it has an electromagnetic field. Note this quote from Minkowski’s Space and Time:

"In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect".

To visualize the electromagnetic field combine radial “electric lines of force” with concentric “magnetic field lines” to yield something with a spinor nature:

Electrons and positrons interact because each is a chiral dynamical spinor in frame-dragged space.  If you set them down with no initial motion they move linearly towards one another, there’s a linear force, and we talk of an electric field. When you throw one past the other they go around one another too, there’s a rotational force, and we speak of a magnetic field. 

When we combine electrons and metal ions such that we only see the linear force we talk of an electric field. When we combine them such that we only see the rotational force we talk of a magnetic field. But each particle has an electromagnetic field, and a spinor nature. Because each is in essence an electromagnetic wave going round and round, such that it’s a standing wave, and what was an electromagnetic field variation is now a standing field. 

This might sound contrary to what you’ve been taught, but ask yourself this: if Maxwell unified electromagnetism a hundred and fifty years ago, how come there’s no depictions of the electromagnetic field anywhere? 

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 01 November 2015 21:10
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field

Hi David

I think I would agree with John D. that for the purposes of discussing the fields generated by waves in space there is just an electromagnetic field.  The electromagnetic fields, E and B portions, generated by the wave motion (distortion traveling through space) are the results of the same thing (that particular type of propagating distortion which is supported by space).  In this sense they are not separable because they are different manifestations of the same cause.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 9:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >
Subject: Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field

John D

The E&M fields can be considered two separate fields that are basically closely coupled by Maxwell's equations. 

Put another way...just because you have one EM field (E for example) does not necessarily mean you have the other (B for example).

Speculation is that there are two different B fields. However, this has not been peer reviewed.

David

  _____  

From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> >
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Cc: 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> > 
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Relativistic space, time and field

All:

I’ve come back after a week away, and caught up with my emails. There’s some excellent stuff there, thanks everybody. 

John W:

Your question left me puzzled. There aren’t two different fields, one electric, one magnetic. The electron has an electromagnetic field, and it is what it is. Imagine you can look at it, and walk around it, studying it from every angle. It has this “screw” nature, like Maxwell said, and like Minkowski said, not totally unlike the gravitomagnetic field <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/> , but in three dimensions, and a whole lot fiercer. Now imagine you back up then move past it fast. That electromagnetic field doesn’t change one iota just because you changed your state of motion. It doesn’t transform at all.   

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 26 October 2015 08:17
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: 'Joakim Pettersson' <joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> >; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >
Subject: [General] Relativistic space, time and field

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

I must apologise in advance if I appear a little cranky this morning. I have been up since 2 am (it is now 7.30 am) I have been in work every day last week, including Saturday and Sunday – certainly more than double my “contracted” hours – actually, getting close to three times them (four times is not possible- though my “workload model” suggest I am only a third loaded and my managers are trying to give me even more to do).  I am pissed off, have not managed to eat properly and feel physically a bit ill.

The intense work has had the advantage that I have caught up with most, though not all, of my University work. I feel as though I have never left the damn place, and am already tired – though 12 hours looms ahead. The coming week promises – if anything to be even worse … I will try not to take it out on you .. but this will not be circumspect …

I have the feeling that we are, collectively, not really getting into the discussion which needs to be had to make proper progress. This is not for lack of trying on my part – but I seem to be getting no reaction at all to the new bits – and yet lots of requests for clarification on parts of physics as it is already is. 

Ladies and gentlemen – I just cannot do this. I cannot provide a tutor service for things that are simply well explained in text books. Let me try a little experiment to clarify what I mean.

For example, there has been a lot of discussion about Einstien’s Special relativity. There has been lots of talk about rulers and clocks, not with the maths so much as in sort of allegorical terms. Everyone seems to think they know what they are talking about – but I do not get the impression that many of us really “get it” at all. Sorry.

This is not to be rude to you all. I agree with Al that most of the people writing TEXT books with the word “relativity” in the title do not “get” relativity much beyond rulers, clocks and synchronising imaginary “observers”. This is probably because that is how they “learned” it themselves. Wiki is at the same (low) level. If the writers of the usual sources are not beyond this – what hope does a graduate of those teachers in universities have of getting there? I should say - it is not my goal or role to sort all this out – though that is where my effort seems to have been going.  See how Christian, for one, has been savaged by the pack for merely daring to suggest some theory and maths appalls me. 

The lack of (quite basisc) understanding of many workers in the field leads to many smart workers– some called Alice and/or Bob, to be completely wasting their time. As Al says, one can explain most of this simply with classical field theory and a proper understanding of relativity (which is automatically in classical field theory – so there you go).

Let me give you a specific example, though, from relativity as explained in the slightly more advanced big books – and I would like you all to be honest with yourself and share it with the group if you were ignorant of the simple fact I am about to state before I brought it up. There is no shame in this: it is how relativity is taught in my “university” for example – so it is probably not your fault.

It is common knowledge (whether “true” in the sense that Al, Martin and I have been talking about it or not), that rulers “shrink” in the direction of the Lorentz transformation and clocks “go slow”. I have been astonished that there has even been discussion about this within this group – but there you go. I do not want to talk about this further here, there has been enough said, but instead take the whole discussion a little bit further

Now I already know several in the group will know what I am about to say to be true (Martin and  Stephen). I suspect others may also have got it (John D, Adam K, Nick – but be honest guys). I am pretty sure that this will be news to most of you – though most delighted if I am wrong!

Although lengths transform ONLY along the velocity directions, fields transform (relativistically) ONLY perpendicular to it. The question is simple: did you “know” that?

To be clear in what I am saying: if the velocity is in the z direction. Lengths transform relativistically in z and not in x and y. Fields transform relativistically in Ex, Ey, Bx, and By AND  PRECISELY NOT in Bz and Ez.

Once again: did you know that before I told you? Do you agree?

Regards, John W.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151102/c06cbfae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151102/c06cbfae/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151102/c06cbfae/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 135905 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151102/c06cbfae/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151102/c06cbfae/attachment-0002.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 189028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151102/c06cbfae/attachment-0003.jpeg>