[General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Dec 29 08:33:28 PST 2016
/Chandra/,
you have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel that I should
comment that.
I fully agree with you regarding what you say about the "running time".
Also about "space-time" and about the necessity of a kind of an inertial
frame. But in the other hand one cannot deny that for instance clocks
are running more slowly when in motion. So, what about SRT in general?
In my view there is a solution for this which reflects your concern. We
have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about
relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not
physics. But the relativistic phenomena can in fact be based on physics.
That was done for instance by Lorentz prior to Einstein's first
publication. Oliver Heaviside in 1888 derived from Maxwell's theory that
fields contract at motion. And also Lorentz and Larmor found out -
before Einstein's paper - that there must be a permanent motion in
elementary particles to explain dilation. All this is real physics, not
geometry. Further Einstein's famous relation E = mc^2 was found by
others before Einstein and before Einstein declared relativity. For
instance by Thomson and Wien (where the result was a bit different but
the connection of both notions was seen).
Perhaps you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my talks in
Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use Lorentz' relativity
rather than the one of Einstein. And I have also undertaken to develop
General Relativity following the concept of Lorentz in order to
understand it at a task in physics, not in geometry. That explains
gravity without any space-time curvature; it is in that view a weak side
effect of the strong force. It is much simpler than the view of
Einstein, because no need for four-dimensionality and Riemannian
geometry. It explains dark matter quantitatively (for an example which I
have calculated), and it has no need for dark energy.
The other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum may be a
usable replacement of the meeting, also the use of the forum of Physics
Essays. But it may have the risk that this discussion will slowly come
to an end. A meeting is a higher challenge for all who contribute and
who attend, so it keeps all active. But if meetings are not possible any
more, this will be better than to give up.
/Richard/:
You know my opinion regarding your way of explaining inertia. In my view
that explanations are tautological statements, as you explain the mass
of an electron by the mass of its constituents. Or you explain the mass
of an object by its momentum, where momentum is essentially the same as
inertia, just in a different context. - In contrast to that the
mechanism that two objects bound to each other at a distance have
inevitably inertia does not need any other assumptions or preconditions
than the existence of a binding field and the existence of c.
Sincerely
Albrecht
Am 26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Good thinking, Richard!
>
> I like your approach, especially that the derivation does not
> need SR.
>
> I have expressed in many of my earlier publications, my book, “Causal
> Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR does not represent
> good Physics.
>
> To me, the first criterion of a good physics theory is that it
> must guide us to understand and visualize the invisible interaction
> processes going on nature. In theorizing such interaction processes,
> the “primary” parameters must relate to the inherent
> behavior-representing property of the object whose interaction process
> is being modeled. The interaction process is guided by nature’s rule
> (logic) that allows the entity to exist and/or interact with other
> cosmic entities (large or small). Our perceptible and observable
> universe is elusive but is not an illusion. This is because we can
> never measure (acquire) complete information about anything with all
> the necessary details. We are always “information starved”. So, we
> must not also describe the universe as “It from bit”. Interaction
> between “bits” generate data; which human minds interprets as
> information. Subjective interpretations of data by human minds as
> information, cannot be the ontological foundation of the universe.
>
> The running time “t” is not a parameter of any object in this
> universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory from very short
> to very long periods. We measure the frequency of an oscillator
> (primary parameter) and then invert it to generate a new secondary
> parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do need the running time “t” as a
> mathematical parameter; it is not a physical parameter and hence the
> assertion that “space-time” is the new physical order of the universe,
> will only divert us away from fathoming nature’s ontological reality.
>
> There are many other reasons that SR is not a physical theory.
> For example, there are no physical inertial frame in this universe
> that can be used to validate SR postulates. All planetary platforms
> are undergoing accelerated motion in closed loop orbits!
>
> However, I have postulated that the space itself is the
> stationary inertial frame of reference filled with Complex Tension
> Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear excitation to perpetually
> propagate as EM waves; and ITS phase-resonant self-looped high-energy
> oscillations are the particles we experience. Their inertial
> properties have been modeled by us as “Mass”. But there are no “Mass”
> in this universe in the Newtonian sense of “matter”. Only energy
> exists in motion (as EM waves and particles) or in quiescent form (as
> the prime CTF). And 100% of the energy is contained by the CTF. No
> need to postulate separate Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are no
> exchange particles to facilitate various forces. “Forces” are the
> physically extended potential gradients generated in the CTF due to
> the complex physical motions of the CTF, which represent various
> particles. To develop a unified field theory, we need a single field
> that is capable of generating everything. The necessary postulates for
> unified field theory cannot be generated while accepting the primacy
> of the existing but self-contradictory, postulates behind the existing
> “working” theories.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> I am sorry that I failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San Diego
> Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.
>
> 1.*/This Forum:/*We will maintain this discussion forum. Although, in
> future, I am thinking of splitting it up into several parallel
> discussions on well-identified problem. I am open to suggestions from
> all of you. [As before, the discussion forums do not need to be based
> upon the unified field, CTF only.]
>
> 2.*/Physics Essays:/*You could also utilize the forum of Physics
> Essays. This out-of-box concept-promoting journal has been running for
> over 25 years. It has page charge. But, then you can re-post it
> anywhere in the web after publication. The page-charge is much less
> than attending the conference.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Monday, December 26, 2016 3:05 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
> Hello all,
> Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.
>
> Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia and Momentum at
> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2 .
> It is I think relevant to all who have circling-photon-like-object
> models of the electron and other particles.
>
> What if a fundamental particle like a resting electron is composed
> of a circling photon-like object with energy Eo and vector momentum p
> = Eo/c where c is the speed of light? If we start with Newton's second
> law of motion F = dp/dt = MA where dp/dt is the time rate of change of
> the circling vector momentum p = Eo/c, M is the inertial mass of the
> circling photon-like object, and A is the centripetal acceleration
> c^2/R of the circling photon-like object (where R is the radius of its
> circle), we find with very easy math (and using the circling vector
> relation dp/dt = pc/R) that the inertial mass M = (dp/dt)/A =
> (pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c = (Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2. That is, the inertial mass M
> of an electron (if it is composed of a circling photon-like object) is
> derived from the circling photon-like object's energy Eo and its
> circling vector momentum Eo/c to be M = Eo/c^2 or Eo = Mc^2 , which is
> Einstein's equation for the energy content Eo of a resting electron of
> inertial mass M.
>
> This result is published at
> https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained . This derivation
> of the relation of the energy content of a resting fundamental
> particle to its inertial mass is done without using Einstein's special
> theory of relativity. Note: Einstein's 1905 article in which he first
> derived m = E/c^2 or E = mc^2 for a resting object by using his
> special theory of relativity is titled "Does the inertia of a body
> depend on its energy-content?”
>
> Richard
>
> On Dec 15, 2016, at 2:07 AM, Burinskii A.Ya. <bur at ibrae.ac.ru
> <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru>> wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for very good explanations and reference to
> good review.
>
>
>
> I wish also to you and all colleagues Merry Christmas and Happy
> New Year,
>
>
>
> Alex
>
> ________________________________
> От: Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com
> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>]
> Отправлено: 14 декабря 2016 г. 12:48
> Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Копия: Stephen Leary; Vera Biryukova; Darren Eggenschwiler; Nick
> Bailey; Anthony Booth; Pete Delaney; Innes Morrison; Alexander
> Afriat; Phil Butler; Michael Wright; Ariane Mandray; Solomon
> Freer; Manohar .; Mike Mobley; Niels Gresnigt; Mark, Martin van
> der; AmancioHasty
> Тема: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
> Hi John,
>
> Many thanks indeed for this very thorough round-up of the
> 'evidence' on quarks.
> Very much appreciated.
>
> Wishing all colleagues a great Christmas and an excellent New Year.
> Grahame
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Cc: Stephen Leary<mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Darren
> Eggenschwiler<mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> ; Nick
> Bailey<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> ; Anthony
> Booth<mailto:abooth at ieee.org> ; Pete
> Delaney<mailto:piet.delaney.2 at gmail.com> ; Innes
> Morrison<mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life> ; Alexander
> Afriat<mailto:afriat at gmail.com> ; Phil
> Butler<mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz> ; Michael
> Wright<mailto:mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Ariane
> Mandray<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> ; Solomon
> Freer<mailto:slf at unsw.edu.au> ; Manohar
> .<mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> ; Vera
> Biryukova<mailto:biriukovavera at gmail.com> ; Mike
> Mobley<mailto:Mike.Mobley at gcu.edu> ; Niels
> Gresnigt<mailto:Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn> ; Mark,Martin van
> der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ;
> AmancioHasty<mailto:ahasty at gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Have been meaning to explain a bit more about the proton internal
> structure for some time in answer to an earlier question from John
> D about the evidence for quarks inside the proton. I did reference
> the literature, but this is hard to understand if you are not in
> the field and the field anyway tries to hide the pure truth with a
> lot of dense and well-established undergrowth. I had not got
> round to this earlier due to two things: pressure of other work
> and the fact that I forgot to note the source for a useful chapter
> I found on the internet. Just tracked it down and it is at:
>
> https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf
>
> Did not want to send you my copy of it without crediting the source.
>
> Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was cut the through some of
> the jargon and help explain what the proton structure functions
> (in fig 4.6 in the above) mean. This is the essence of what is
> known experimentally about the internal structure of the proton –
> and contains the main evidence for the quark-parton model. The
> quark-parton model is the association of hard bits in the proton,
> the partons, with the pattern of existing particles explained by
> Gell-Mann’s quark model. This also helps to explain some things
> about Richard’s question in the recent email – hence the choice to
> spend time on this in the early hours of this morning.
>
> Now I’m not going to explain this in detail – the chapter
> referenced above does a better job of this – but I want to cut the
> experiment a bit free from the embedded story of the QCD
> quark-gluon etc etc model (and it is just a model remember) and
> explain what the EXPERIMENT tells you.
>
> The experiment gives the structure functions in terms of two
> variables Qsquared and x. Briefly, Qsquared is the measured
> 4-momentum transfer squared of the interaction in GeV squared. How
> hard you hit it (squared). To give you an idea of the scale of the
> hit – 100GeV squared is roughly ten times the mass-energy of the
> proton itself. And so the data extends out to about a 100 protons
> worth of “hit”. That is hard!
>
> Now x is a more interesting variable. It is the measured fraction
> of the proton’s 4-momentum carried by whatever you hit. Thinking
> of the proton in its rest-frame – this is just its rest mass. So x
> tells you how much of the proton mass was carried by whatever you
> hit. x is 1 and you got the whole proton. This is what you would
> always measure if you hit a simple object like the electron. The
> electron is a single object and it carries all of its mass
> localized to the electron. This is how you know. The proton is not
> like that. At the quark-parton models simplest, with no forces and
> no confinement one thinks of it as three quarks. If each of these
> carried a third of the proton mass one would have data at only x =
> 0.33. Note that there is not even any structure there.
>
> What one actually sees is completely different to this, or to any
> three-hard-bits-in-a-bag model. In the vast majority of collisions
> the effective “mass” of whatever you hit was very very low. Look
> at the scale for F2. It goes over 12 orders of magnitude. One is
> hundreds of millions times more likely to hit a “quark-parton”
> with a practically zero x of 0.000063 than one with a (simple
> model) x of 0.3 ish. Now precisely zero x would be hitting a
> rest-massless (photon-like) object, one third x would be simple
> rest-massive quarks in a massless bag with binding energy (gluons
> if you like) of the same order as the mass. A sixth x would be 3
> equal mass quarks with some confinement at the same kind of energy
> as the quark mass-energy. You get nothing like this. What you get
> is gloop. There is almost no discernable structure at all.
>
> So why do people think there are hard bits in the proton. The
> evidence for this comes from scaling – a flat distribution with Q
> squared then. This IS evidenced by the curves in the middle of the
> figure. At x = 0.08 it is pretty flat. Think about it. If the
> proton contained hard billiard-ball like bits, how likely you were
> to hit them with another flung billiard ball does not depend on
> how hard you fling it, but on the “impact parameter”. This is what
> is characteristic of single-hard-object scattering.
>
> Note that this simple scaling does not apply at low x, where the
> data shows that it becomes rapidly more likely to find a
> photon-like object as one hits it harder, and at high x where it
> becomes rapidly less likely to hit a high-mass constituent.
> Explain that in a model of a bag of bits. You should resolve the
> hard bits better, instead it seems they break. Not very hard then.
> Ok, you are walloping them with a 4-momentum squared many times
> their mass squared, but one is doing this at lower x as well. The
> other thing is that, if you integrate over all the bits you hit in
> deep inelastic proton scattering, you only get about half the
> proton mass. The rest is something else, something unhittable with
> charges and photons. This is the meaning of equation 4.77. This is
> interpreted as arising from the binding. Could well be, but
> whatever they are binding is mostly, experimentally, a whole pile
> of really low mass bits (if bits indeed) – more and more of it as
> one looks harder and harder. Remember, to make up the proton mass
> there must be (at least) hundreds of millions of them. Hundreds of
> millions is not 3. One talks about “valence quarks and sea quarks,
> but this is mostly bullshit. One sees what one sees, not what one
> would like to see. Also the number in eq. 4.77 is so near 50
> percent I favour something much more radical and far simpler. That
> will eventually become another paper. Quarks, why there are three
> and what they really are is what comes next.
>
> If you want to see how bad it gets for the standard model (and why
> I left particle physics) the bullshit about the standard model
> picture gets (much!) worse in the next section about the “proton
> spin crisis” so read on if you dare …
>
> I’m not quite up to speed with who is or is not on the general
> maiing list, so some of you may get this twice – apologies!
>
> Thats it for now.
>
> Cheers, John.
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20161229/91ae7758/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list