[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Feb 25 20:36:31 PST 2018
Chip;
the analysis was directed at Albrect's use of the Lorenz transform to
calculate physical properties instead of recognizing that such
transforms merely shuffle the actual properties around by "looking" at
the same thing with different coordinate axis , I think Chandra agrees
with this observation and the example of a magnetic field generated by
one charge disappearing is fine, but the impossibility of finding a
coordinate frame that makes magnetic phenomena between two relatively
moving charges disappear casts doubt on the validity of the field
assumption as a property of space.
Now to CTF
To say that CTF is a source of charge still gives me trouble until I get
a better understanding of what this CTF is. I tried to suggest it may be
a tension field between charge and mass but if that is rejected please
help. Chandra was unable to give an answer.
Furthermore I have trouble with utilizing energy as the fundamental.
What happened to action? After all in classic physics energy is the rate
of action flow and momentum is the spatial density of action along a
path. Why is action not fundamental? From a model building point of view
all our theories are based upon interpretations of action hits. The
total action function A(x,y,z,t) is therefore the database from which
all theories are grounded in experiment.
What happened to action in your CTF concept?
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/25/2018 6:27 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> I think you are very close to right in the analysis below, with one
> exception.
>
> It seems the CTF is the source of charge. And that charge is created
> by energy reacting with the CTF. And that the CTF and energy can also
> create mass. But neither exist in empty space unless energy is present.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:27 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Albrecht Giese
> <phys at a-giese.de>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
> particles
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I think I understand your arguments since this is what is generally
> taught, however I have always been uncomfortable with the statements
> involving “observer”.
>
> So I question your statement “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.”
>
> Now ancient experiments discovered that there are two reciprocal
> forces between charges. The relative distance R gives the Coulomb
> force F_E and the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force F_B
>
> Now if these are independent entities whose existence does not depend
> upon any observation made by the observer (until we get to quantum
> measurements) . /This means the physics is fixed /and so are the
> parameters. Any measurement made by any coordinate frame when properly
> processed for its own distortions will result in the same parameters,
> so R,V, F_B , F_E ^and yes the speed of light must be constant.
>
> If the measurement results differ either we do not have
> objective measurement independent reality or else there is an
> unaccounted artifact in the measurement process.
>
> I and QM claims there is no objective measurement independent reality.
>
> Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame dilates and shrinks so that when
> raw measurements are made and no correction is applied we may not
> observe a magnetic field but instead a different Coulomb field so that
> the actual result on the object measured remains the same only the
> names of the causes have been changed.
>
> Now consider looking at the same two charges from an arbitrary
> coordinate frame. then in that frame the two charges will have wo
> velocities V1 and V2 but there will always be a difference V
>
>
>
>
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> I contend that it does not matter what frame you chose cannot get rid
> of the relative velocity. The only way you can get rid of the magnetic
> field is if there was no relative velocity in the first palace. And
> there never was a magnetic field in the physics.
>
> Therefore your further conclusion “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.” Is only true if
> there was no magnetic field in the first place, a very special case.
>
> We must be very careful not to confuse the actual physics in a
> situation with the way we look at it.
>
> If we apply the same analysis to the Michelson Morley experiment I
> think we will also find that there never was a fringe shift in the
> physics. The physics states charges interact with other charges,
> basta. Introducing fields and then attributing what has always been a
> summation of many charge effects on one test charge onto a property of
> empty space is simply a convenient mathematical trick that hides the
> physical reality.
>
> I further submit this as an argument that mass and charge are
> fundamental physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the tension that
> holds mass and charge together when electro-magentic forces operating
> on charge densities and gravito-inertial forces operating on mass
> densities are not balanced and pulls mass and charge apart. I further
> submit the the resulting fluctuations in the mass-charge densities
> leads to CTF propagating patterns that are an ontologically defensible
> interpretation of Schroedingers Wave function.
>
> Tell me why I’m wrong
>
> 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>
>
> On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 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 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 at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?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/20180225/4670b836/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180225/4670b836/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180225/4670b836/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180225/4670b836/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list