[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Feb 26 12:29:52 PST 2018
/Chandra:/
Let's begin with your question at the end.
It is a good and a challenging question in so far as we treat magnetism
in our everyday live in a way which does not reflect the true physics
behind it. Normally if we have to do it with magnetism, then it is a
magnetic dipole. And when we measure a magnetic field we use another
magnetic dipole, i.e. we measure the force or the angular momentum onto
this test dipole.
The clean way to measure a magnetic field is to use an electric test
charge. If there is a force acting on the test charge we have to check
whether this force can be explained by the presence of another charge
using the Coulomb law. Then we have to build the difference between the
force given by the Coulomb law and the real force observed. This
difference is "magnetism".
If we say that the earth has a magnetic field, we mean that it is a
magnetic dipole. And we measure the field strength by the use of another
magnetic dipole, we may call the latter one a "test-dipole".
Now your question regarding the Earth. To measure the magnetic field of
the Earth physically, one should use an electrical test charge and
measure the force on it. Now, if the earth is not electrically charged,
the result will be 0. That means no magnetic field is detected. Should
now the observer move together with his charge in relation to the Earch,
there will be a force. That means during his motion he will see a
magnetic field. - This answers your question how it can be achieved that
an observer does not see a magnetic field. Normally he will not see it
anyway. Our daily experience is of course different. Because if someone
starts to measure the magnetism of the earth he will use a dipole as
said above; with the conclusion that there is a magnetic field. And it
will be extremely difficult (I think impossible) to move a dipole so
that it will not see a magnetic field. The reason is simple. In a
magnetic dipole, which is generally a coil with a current in it, there
are always charges at some position in the coil which are in a motion
state to the moving charges in the Earth, so one will register magnetism.
You mention a "magnetic body". I do not feel that this is a good way to
name it. The magnetic body at the end is an electric charge. And that
one is only "magnetic" if it is viewed from a certain perspective.
Then you say: A propagating EM wave has oscillating E and B vectors. A
dipole oscillation induces oscillating E, which generates its own
restoring force B, ... Please have in mind that this is the
understanding of Maxwell's theory. But Maxwell is good for the practical
use of electromagnetism, but it does not reflect the cause of magnetism.
If you have general doubts about my description of magnetism I should
say that all this is not my idea but main stream physics, can be found
in textbooks e.g. about SR. However ignored by most practising main
stream physicists.
Albrecht
Am 26.02.2018 um 00:25 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> */Wolf:/*
>
> I think, I am more along the line of your thinking.
>
> *//*
>
> */Albrecht: /*
>
> Now I am realizing that magnetism is a very important field (pun
> intended Jthat I do not fully understand. Intuitively I disagree with
> the explanation that “magnetic field” EMERGES only due to RELATIVE
> VELOCITY between a charge and an */observer/*. Relative velocity may
> change the quantification by our instrument of what already exist in
> nature. I submit, I do not have good counter theory.
>
> On a different angle, we human are mere interpreters of data, send to
> our neural network, whether by our internal body-sensors or by reading
> “dials” of external sensors (instruments). */Interactants, inside our
> instruments that generate the data, are the real “observers”/*, if we
> must use this word..*/Humans are not the observers, just interpreters.
> /*Therefore, the job of humans should be to develop theories that
> directly tries to model the */interaction processes/* going on between
> the interactants inside the instruments, or in nature. Our
> interpretations can vary widely from person to person; but the
> physical transformations experienced by the interactants inside our
> instruments follow ontological (existing) rules of operation in
> nature. That is why we can get re-producible data for the same
> interaction process. This is the bedrock of causal physics. We can
> modify the strengths of interactions by introducing changes in the
> interaction parameter in diverse ways, including relative velocity.
>
> Unfortunately, my expertise on magnetism is quite limited.
> However, as of now, I am reluctant to accept that magnetism
> */appears/* only as SR implicates. In my stationary CTF model,
> everything observable and their properties do emerge due to dynamic
> movements. But they are real, not “relative”. Can we really claim that
> magnetism is like Doppler Effect? The measured frequency shift is
> solely dependent on the relative velocity. However, the frequency of
> the emitted radiation is the real physical parameter of a physical
> entity, an EM wave packet. That is why Doppler shift varies with the
> relative velocity.*/Does the strength of magnetic field changes with
> the relative velocity of the detector with respect to the magnetic
> body?/*
>
> Another angle. A propagating EM wave has oscillating E and B vectors.
> A dipole oscillation induces oscillating E, which generates its own
> restoring force B, thereby, generating the perpetually oscillating and
> propagating wave packet in the */stationary/* CTF. In the biological
> world, cellular magnetism plays wide ranges of important functions. I
> will have read up on these phenomena.
>
> Let me pose a question.
>
> Earth and many other planets have magnetic fields due to motions in
> their cores.
>
> Can an external magnetic sensor be forced to read “null magnetic
> field” by giving it the right velocity in the right direction?
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2018 3:02 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
> particles
>
> Hi Wolf, and hi Chandra,
>
> comments and answers down in the text:
>
> Am 23.02.2018 um 05:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> "Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field, he can find a motion
> state so that the magnetic field disappears."
>
> I've heard this many times but now that you said it, and I'm no
> longer a student so I have time to wonder ,
>
> there is a coil of wire in front of me I feel a magnetic field
> exactly how would I move to make it disappear? And what other
> forces would I experience to maintain that motion?
>
> This may be explainable stepwise. In the first step use a coil of wire
> with only one moving charge in it. Now have a test charge at the side
> outside the coil. This test charge will see the electrostatic force
> according to the Coulomb law, but nothing more. If this test charge is
> not at rest but moving then in the frame of the test charge nothing
> changes, Coulomb still applies. But if an observer at rest measures
> the electrostatic force between both in _his _frame, he will see a
> different force acting on the test charge. This can be also calculated
> using the Lorentz transformation with respect to force. This
> difference is called "magnetism". If now the observer moves with the
> test charge he will only see the electrostatic force like the test
> charge itself does, so no magnetism.
> If there in not only one charge in the coil but a lot of them, there
> will be a superposition of all applying forces. Now an observer who
> wants to escape the magnetic field will have to find a new frame which
> takes into account this superposition.
>
> The electron velocity in a wire is quite low and I can increase
> the current and keep the velocity the same thus increase the
> magnetic field so if I rotate around the center axis of the loop I
> can make the charges stand still and there should be no magnetic
> field - maybe but now we have to ask how do I measure the magnetic
> field to reach this conclusion?
>
> A magnetic field is generally measured in the way that the force on a
> charge is measured and the result is compared to the expected Coulomb
> force. If there is an excess of force, it is magnetism.
>
> well if I place another wire loop the electrons in both wires move
> at the same velocity and by the argument above they would not
> "see" the electrons in the other ring moving but they would
> certainly feel a magnetic field and the two loops would attract
> each other
>
> The electrons in one loop will of course "see" the electrons in the
> other one. If both wires are overcharged with electrons then there
> will be the repelling Coulomb force. But in the normal case in
> practise the wires are electrically neutral. And a current means that
> negative charges (here electrons) are moving into one direction and
> positive charges (the corresponding positive "holes" of charge) are
> moving into the other direction. Now, what will a test electron notice
> which moves outside along the wire? It will see the charges moving
> into the opposite direction relativistically contracted, the co-moving
> ones not (or precisely: extended). And so the test electron will see a
> different density of charges (for the positive and negative ones) and
> so a resulting field (which an electron at rest will not see). The
> resulting force which is only noticeable by a moving test charge is
> called magnetism.
>
> There is a video of Versitasium which shows this quite illustrative:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Was this understandable?
> Albrecht
>
> 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 2/22/2018 11:26 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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 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/20180226/751c5ad8/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/20180226/751c5ad8/attachment.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list