[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Fri Feb 23 06:51:26 PST 2018
Chandra:
If two electrons move side by side, the main force between them is of
course the electrostatic one. But there is an additional contribution to
the force which is measured in the frame of an observer at rest (like
the one of Millikan). In the frame of the moving electrons (maybe they
belong to the same frame) there is only the electrostatic force, true.
The different amount seen by the observer can be calculated by the use
of the force-related Lorentz transformation - from the frame of the
electrons to the frame of the observer.
If the oil-drop chamber is in steady motion this has primarily no
influence. Important is the motion state of the observer. If the
observer is at rest with respect to the moving oil-drops (and so of the
electrons), he will notice a contribution of magnetism. Any motion of
the chamber does not matter for this fact.
In general magnetism is visible for an observer who is in motion with
respect to both charges under consideration. As soon as an observer
moves with one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame of
one of the charges, then there is no magnetic field for him.
Your example of two compass needles is a more complex one even if it
does not look so. To treat this case correctly we have to take into
account the cause of the magnetism of the needle, that means of the
circling charges in the atoms (in Fe). If we would do this then - seen
from our own frame - both groups of charges are moving, the charges in
the conductor and also the charges in the needle's atoms. So as both are
moving with respect to the observer, this is the cause for a magnetic
field between both objects.
Albrecht
Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht: Your point is well taken. Not being expert in magnetism, I
> need to spend more time on this issue.
>
> However, let me pose a question to think.
>
> If two electrons are trapped in two side by side but separate Millikan
> oil drops, the two electrons feel each other’s static E-field, but no
> magnetic field. If the oil-drop chamber was given a steady velocity,
> could Millikan have measured the presence of a magnetic field due to
> the moving electrons (“current”), which would have been dying out as
> the chamber moved further away? This experiment can be conceived in
> many different ways and can be executed. Hence, this is not a pure
> “Gedanken” experiment. I am sure, some equivalent experiment has been
> done by somebody. Send me the reference, if you can find one.
>
> Are two parallel current carrying conductors deflecting magnetic
> needles (undergraduate experiment) different from two independent
> electrons moving parallel to each other?
>
> I have just re-phrased Einstein’s example that you have given below.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:26 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
> particles
>
> Chandra,
>
> I like very much what you have written here. Particularly what you say
> about "time" which physically means oscillations. That is what one
> should keep in mind when thinking about relativity.
>
> However in one point I have to object. That is your judgement of the
> parameter µ. I think that it is a result from the historical fact that
> magnetism was detected long time earlier than electricity. So
> magnetism plays a great role in our view of physics which does not
> reflect its role there. We know since about 100 years that magnetism
> is not a primary phenomenon but an apparent effect, a side effect of
> the electric field which is caused by the finiteness of c. If c would
> be infinite there would not be any magnetism. This is given by the
> equation c^2 = (1/ϵµ)which you have mentioned. This equation should be
> better written as µ = (1/c^2 ϵ) to reflect this physical fact, the
> dependency of the magnetism on c.
>
> The symmetry between electricity and magnetism is suggested by
> Maxwell's equation. These equations are mathematically very elegant
> and well usable in practice. But they do not reflect the physical
> reality. Easiest visible is the fact that we have electrical monopoles
> but no magnetic monopoles. Einstein has described this fact by saying:
> Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field, he can find a motion
> state so that the magnetic field disappears. - This is as we know not
> possible for an electric field.
>
> I think that we have discussed this earlier. Do you remember?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> /“We nee//d a geometry in which both space and time are curved
> back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem,
> Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action quanta. /
>
> /Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking
> about??”/
>
> Yes, Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists and turns”
> of different intrinsic potential gradients embedded in CTF
> (Complex Tension Field) to create stationary self-looped
> oscillations (*/field-particles/*). Maxwell achieved that for the
> propagating linear excitations using his brilliant observations of
> using the double differentiation – giving us the EM wave equation.
> We need to find non-propagating (stationary – Newton’s first law)
> self-looped oscillations – the in-phase ones will be stable,
> others will “break apart” with different life-times depending upon
> how far they are from the in-phase closed-loop conditions. The
> successes of the mathematical oscillatory dynamic model could be
> judged by the number of predicted properties the theory can find
> for the */field-particles,/* which we have measured so far. The
> physical CTF must remain stationary holding 100% of the cosmic
> energy.
>
> However, I would not attempt to keep the primacy of Relativity
> by trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D concept intact. If we want to
> capture the ontological reality; we must imagine and visualize the
> potential */foundational/* physical process and represent that
> with a set of algebraic symbols and call them the primary
> parameters of “different grades”. During constructing mathematical
> theories, it is of prime importance to introduce consciously this
> concept of “primary”, vs. “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
> physical parameters related to any observable physical phenomenon.
> The physical parameter that dictates the core existence of an
> entity in nature should be considered as primary. However, it is
> not going to be easy because of the complexities in the different
> interaction processes – different parameters take key role in
> transferring the energy in different interactions. Besides, our
> ignorance is still significantly broad compared to the “validated”
> knowledge we have gathered about our universe. Here is a glaring
> example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing atomic physics, ν is of
> primary importance because of the quantum resonance with ν and the
> QM energy exchange rule is “hν”. “λ” changes from medium to
> medium. If I am doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are of
> primary significance; even though people tend to use “c”, while
> missing out the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as some of the core
> building blocks of the universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ and µ
> of free space were recognized well before Maxwell synthesized
> Electromagnetism.
>
> With this background, I want underscore that the “running
> time, “t” is of critical importance in our formulation of the
> dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is not a directly measurable
> physical parameter of any object in this universe. What we measure
> is really the frequency, or its inverse, the oscillation periods
> of different physical oscillators in this universe. So, frequency
> can be dilated or contracted by controlling the ambient physical
> parameter of the environment that surrounds and INFLUENCES the
> oscillator. The running time cannot be dilated or contracted; even
> though Minkowsky introduced this “dilation” concept. This is the
> reason why I have been pushing for the introduction in physics
> thinking the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
> stable particles
>
> Candra:
>
> Let’s consider your tension filed is a medium underlying the
> experience of space composed of charge and mass density spread out
> in the cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate frame cells of
> /small enough/ sizes can be described by constant enough mass and
> charge densities in each cell. For small enough cells the mass and
> charge values concentrated at their centers may be used in stead
> of the densities. The resulting field of center values can take
> any pattern that satisfies the extended dAlambert principle.
> Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem and gravito-inertial
> force Fgi I postulate forces tat hold charge and mass together
> Fcm, Fmc. This condition assures mass charge centers in each cell
> appear at locations of balanced forces. Each pattern which
> satisfies this condition represents a static state of the loop in
> which the patterns are fixed for the lifetime of the loop.
>
> **
>
> *The Charge-Mass Separation Vector and Equilibrium States*
>
> The physical size of the space is its volume. The volume (Vol) of
> space is the sum of the infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of the
> cells composing that space “Vol = ∫_all space dVol”. These
> infinitesimal volumes are calculated from the mass-charge density
> extensions in each cell when viewed externally as shown in figure
> 4.3-3a . The physical volume depends upon the mass charge
> separation pattern of the equilibrium state the system being
> modeled exists in.
>
> In CAT the extension of a cell can be calculated as
> follows. In each cell the distance between the center of charge
> and mass is a vector d*ζ.* The projection of this vector onto the
> degrees of freedom directions available for the charge and mass to
> move in the generalized coordinate space allows us to expansion
> this vector as,
>
> Eq. 4.3-1 *dζ =* dζ_t *∙u_t * + dζ_x *∙u_x *+ dζ_y *∙u_y *+ dζ_z
> *∙u_z +…* dζ_f *∙u_f +…,*
>
> **where the *u_f *’s are the unit vectors. A space limited to
> Cartesian 3-space is characterized by three x,y,z directions, but
> CAT models a generalized space that encompasses all sensor
> modalities not only the optical ones.
>
> The volume of a cell calculated from the diagonal
> expansion vector “*dζ”* by multiplying all non zero coefficients,
>
> Eq. 4.3-2 dVol = dζ_t *∙*dζ_x *∙*dζ_y *∙*dζ_z
> *∙…∙*dζ_f *∙… .*
>
> The shape of this volume is determined by the
> direction of the expansion vector which in turn is determined by
> the direction and strength of forces pulling the charge and mass
> apart. The direction of pull depends upon the number of dimensions
> available in the generalized coordinates of the media. The forces
> must be in equilibrium but exact equilibrium pattern depends upon
> which global loop equilibrium state “Ζ” the event being modeled is
> in.
>
> In the simplest equilibrium state the masses and
> charges are collocated. This implies the internal forward
> propagating in time forces F_cm ,F_mc , and backward propagating
> in time force F_mc *,F_cm * are zero, and if there are no internal
> force pulling the charges and masses together then sum of the
> remaining exterior gravito-electric forces pulling the charge and
> mass apart must separately be zero precisely at the collocation
> point. A trivial condition that satisfies these equations is when
> all forces are zero. In this case there is no action in the media
> and no action for expanding the coordinate frame defining a volume
> of space. We are back to a formless blob of zero volume, where all
> charges and masses are at the same point. This is the absolute
> ground state of material, one level of something above nothing.
> The big bang before the energy of action flow is added.
>
> To exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium state of a
> single isolated cell whose only degree of freedom is the time
> direction. This means the volume in all space directions are
> infinitesimally small and the volume can be considered a single
> line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT_w = ∫dζ_t “ along the time direction
> as shown in the god’s eye perspective of figure 4.3-6. In this
> situation we can consider charges and masses to be point
> particles. Forces as well as action can only propagate along the
> material length of the line time line represented in space as
> “Qw”. We now list the sequence of changes that can propagate
> through around the equilibrium positions indicated by numbers in
> parenthesis.
>
> (1)The upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium position
> (filled icon) forward along the time line
>
> (2)It exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing it forward
> while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that retards it back to its
> equilibrium position
>
> (3)While the left charge is moved from equilibrium it exerts an
> internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass while feeling a reaction
> force “Fcm*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>
> (4)While the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
> force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a reaction force
> “Fgi*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>
> (5)While the right mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
> force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling a reaction force
> “Fmc*” which returns it to equilibrium. We are now back to (1).
>
> If the system is isolated there is no dissipation into other
> degrees of freedom and the oscillation continues to move as a
> compression wave around the “Qw” time line circumference forever.
> The graph however is static and shows a fixed amount of action
> indicated by the shaded arrows around the time line. Motion in
> “block” models is produced by the velocity of the observer or
> model operator as he moves around the time line. From our god’s
> eye perspective an action density is permanently painted on the
> clock dial and thereby describes an total event. The last degree
> of freedom events are rather trivial
>
> We need a geometry in which both space and time are
> curved back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces
> Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action
> quanta.
>
> Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking about??
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> 1. Yes, I have submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent the
> approval link yet.
>
> 2. Replacement of our SPIE conf. Without a supporting
> infrastructure to replace SPIE-like support, it is very
> difficult to manage. I will try NSF during the last week of
> May. Do you want to start negotiating with some out-of-box
> European groups?
>
> 3. Re-starting afresh from the bottom up is the only way to
> start re-building a unified field theory. It is futile to
> force-fit whole bunch of different theories that were
> structured differently at different states of human cultural
> epoch.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer
> <wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
>
> Chandra:
>
> Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of evolution..."
>
> I love the sentiment " This is a good time to start
> iteratively re-evaluating and restructuring all the
> foundational postulates behind all the working theories"
>
> Did you write a paper for FQXi?
>
> I sent one in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>
> Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE
> conference, one that would expand the questions
>
> beyond the nature of light?
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180223/575765ca/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180223/575765ca/attachment.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list