[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Thu Mar 1 06:52:37 PST 2018
Wolf:
my answers again in your text.
Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> The Coriolis force as a surrogate for the Magnetic force is a good
> example that shows we are talking about ttwo different things. I was
> taught exactly what you repeated below in Mr. Bray's physics class and
> did not believe it then because when I take a ride on a Merry-go-Round
> I feel a force that is real. Period.
>
That is indeed correct. It is a real force. If we have a hurricane on
earth it is a result of the Coriolis force and that is a real force. The
point is, however, that it is not a NEW force but the well known
Newtonian inertial force; just interpreted in a different way.
The same with magnetism. Also magnetism shows a real force. And that
force is the electric force, but also in this case interpreted in a
different way.
>
> I do not care what you call it You can look at me from many different
> angles and in many different ways but the force I feel is real,
>
Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a different way.
>
> What I am arguing and what I want you to be aware of is that in the
> sentence "The Coriolis force is a non-existent force." it is the name
> of the force that may be the wrong name for the force I experience,
> but the force is real.
>
You are right, better wording would be "it does not exist as a NEW force".
>
> All the examples I've give and let me add the Lorenz Force F= E*q +
> B xV , where V my velocity.You think I am arguing but I am not
> arguing that by moving at some velocity you can make B disappear in
> your equation and by moving at another velocity you can make V equal
> to zero in your equation. I am arguing that you cannot make the
> phenomena disappear. No matter how many theories you invent and how
> many different names you invent. The phenomena, the force I feel does
> not depend on your theory. I and the situation I am in is an
> independent reality. All you can do with Lorenz transformations is
> shift the name of the force from magnatic to and additional Coulonb
> component. Exactly the same way moving from astationary observer at
> the center of the Merry-go-Round shifts the name ov the force from
> acceleration to Coreolis. Its the same force!
>
True, there is a force. But only interpreted as something new or
additional, which is not the case.
"To make magnetism disappear" does not mean that every force disappears.
It means that you can explain all what you observe as Coulomb force.
And one should be cautious in the practical case. In daily physical
practise we measure magnetism by use of a magnetic dipole. But that is
not the correct way. Correct is to use an electric charge, measure the
force and compare it to the Coulomb force as visible from the actual
state of motion.
I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows the situation in a
good and correct way.
>
> Unless (and here is where I am trying to get us to go) one begins to
> believe and evoke the principles of quantum theory or its
> marcro-scopic extension which I am trying to develop.
>
All this has nothing to do with quantum theory. It is one of the sources
of QM that physicists misinterpret classical physical processes, lack an
explanation and then divert to QM seeking for an explanation, which is
in those cases not needed. But misleading.
>
> In those extensions the Newtonian, and Maxwellian phenomena are true
> in the coordinate frame of the observer BECAUSE the coordinate frame
> supplies the space , now called Hilbert space in which those phenomena
> are displayed to the observer. The observer IS the coordinate frame
> and his observable phenomena occur within the space defined by that
> coordinate frame. Everything you see is seen in a space you create
> within the material from which you are built.
>
I personally do not see the space as being created by anything. I keep
my naive view that space is nothing than emptiness and has no extra
properties, Euclidean geometry applies and is sufficient.
Should I ever encounter an argument that this is not sufficient, I am
prepared to change my mind. But up to now it was not necessary.
>
> All the physics before Einstein was developed with the assumption that
> there is an independent objective 3D reality space ( and it should be
> a stationary ether) in which all these objects appear. Einstein almost
> got it right. There is no independent ether and it all depends upon
> the coordinate frame. He did not take the next step. We observers are
> the coordinate frame each of us supplies the ether.
>
Here my position is completely opposite. We do have an independent ether
as Lorentz has assumed it. And it is an ether in the sense that the
speed of light is related to a fixed frame, and this does not cause any
logical conflicts in my understanding.
>
> Please read may Vigier X Paper again but ignore the first part where
> I'm trying to show why SR is wrong - you argued a lot with that. The
> real reason SR is wrong is because Einstein developed it without
> recognizing that his imagination supplied the background ether and his
> rail car and .embankment observer where "RIDING ALONG" with their
> coordinate frames observing Einsteins imaginary space. They were not
> IN their own space.
>
Can you please copy this essential part of your paper here? I do not
have it at hand in this moment.
>
> This is where we should return to our SR discussion and properly add
> the observer to physics
>
Special relativity gives us in my view not any reason to turn to an
observer dependent physics. For Einstein's view it is correct, but for
the Lorentzian it is not necessary.
Ludwik Kostro, who participated in Vigier X, has written a book about
"Einstein and the ether". And he has - among other sources - reprinted a
letter exchange between Einstein and Lorentz about the necessity of an
ether. Lorentz described a (Gedanken) experiment which in his view is
not explainable without ether. Einstein refused to except an ether, but
he did not present any arguments how this experiment can be understood
without it.
I still think that Einstein's relativity has mislead the physical world
in a tremendous way. There are in fact relativistic phenomena, but
Einstein's way to treat them was really bad.
> CHANDRA- there may be an abstract independent CTF but my suggestion is
> that it may be the ether each of us is made of and therefor may be
> thought to be stationary.
>
> best wishes
>
> wolf
>
Best wishes
Albrecht
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> I think that there is a simple answer to your concern regarding
>> magnetism. If you accept that magnetism is not a real physical entity
>> but a seeming effect then there should not exist the logical
>> conflicts which you see.
>>
>> I think that the Coriolis force is a good example to understand the
>> situation: Assume that you are sitting in a cabin without a view to
>> the outside. Now assume that this cabin is rotating very silently so
>> that you do not notice the rotation. You are sitting in a chair in
>> the middle on the rotational axis. Now you throw a ball from your
>> position away from you. You will expect that the ball flies on a
>> straight path off. But you will observe that the ball flies on a
>> curved path. And what will be your explanation? You will think that
>> there must be a force which moves the ball to the side. - This is the
>> Coriolis force.
>>
>> But this force does not in fact exist. If there is an observer on top
>> of the cabin and can look into the cabin, in his view the ball moves
>> on a straight line. And there is no reason for a force.
>>
>> The Coriolis force is a non-existent force. Similarly the magnetic
>> field is a non-existent field.
>>
>>
>> Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I have a tremendous aversion to believing that the observer (unless
>>> we are talking quantum effects where measurement interferes with the
>>> object measured ) can have any effect on the independent “whatever
>>> it is” out there. But physicists often confuse measurement results
>>> with physical realities.
>>>
>>> Regarding “*The relative velocity between charges does NOT determine
>>> the magnetic field.”*
>>>
>>> Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force between two
>>> current segments is oin differential form
>>>
>>> d*F12*= - I1*I2 (*dl1* ● *dl2*)**X12* /(c^2 * |*X12*|^3
>>>
>>> now the current is charge q1**v1 = *I1**dl1 *and q2**v2 = *I1**dl1
>>> *substituting means the magnetic force between the two charges is
>>> dependent on the dot product between the two velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).
>>>
>>> Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity
>>> dependent potentials p19
>>>
>>> And we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x B12 while the
>>> magnetic field is dependent on v! , so the force is dependent on two
>>> velocities.
>>>
>>> Now your statement ‘*But the magnetic field depends on the relative
>>> velocity between the observer and the one charge and the observer
>>> and the other charge. Where "observer" means the measuring tool.”
>>> *Is certainly true because one can always define one coordinate
>>> frame that moves with velocity of the first charge and a second
>>> coordinate frame that moves with the velocity of the second charge.
>>> So in these two coordinate frames each one would say there is no B
>>> field.
>>>
>>> However I see both charges in *one coordinate frame* and that is how
>>> the experiments leading to the force equations were conducted. So I
>>> question whether your assumption that there are two coordinate
>>> frames and I assume you would like to connected by the Lorenz
>>> transforms reflects physical reality.
>>>
>> I have asked you in the previous mail NOT to argue with coordinate
>> frames because we should discuss physics and not mathematics. Now you
>> cite me with statements about coordinate frames. How can I understand
>> that?
>>
>> However if you really insist to talk about frames: The saying that
>> two charges are in different coordinate frames means that these
>> charges are _at rest_ in different coordinate frames. They can of
>> course be investigated by an observer (or a tool) which resides in
>> _one _frame.
>>
>> The equation from Jackson which you have cited above is essentially
>> the same as the one that I gave you in the previous mail. And it says
>> also that the magnetic field depends on the _product _of both charges
>> involved, not on their difference.
>>>
>>> I reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb fieldis passed
>>> upon the measured force between a test charge Qt and another charge
>>> Qn. So that the total force on the test charge is
>>>
>>> F =~SUM over all n (Qt * Qn / Rtn^2 )
>>>
>>> And it is possible to introduce a field
>>>
>>> E = SUM over all n (Qn / Rtn^2 )
>>>
>>> As that F= Qt * E
>>>
>>> Perfectly good mathematically. But to assume that physically E is a
>>> property of space rather than simply the sum of charge to charge
>>> interactions that would happen if a test charge were at that space
>>> is a counter factual. And not consistent with the quantum photon theory.
>>>
>> Why do you assume that a field is a property of space? If you assume
>> that space is nothing else than emptiness then you will have all
>> necessary results. Why making things unnecessarily complicated?
>>>
>>> Which by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are false
>>> interpretations of charge to charge interactions.
>>>
>> I do not remember that we talk here about quantum theory. For this
>> discussion at least it is not needed. And regarding photons, I have
>> explained very detailed that photons - as I have measured them in my
>> thesis work - are particles with specific properties; but clearly
>> particles. You did not object to my arguments but you repeat your
>> statement that a photon as a particle is a false interpretation. It
>> would be good to hear argument than only statements.
>>>
>>>
>>> that is for another discussion
>>>
>> Which else discussion?
>>>
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>>
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf,
>>>>
>>>> my comments and explanations in the text below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> There is an error in your above arguments. The relative velocity
>>>> between charges does NOT determine the magnetic field. But the
>>>> magnetic field depends on the relative velocity between the
>>>> observer and the one charge and the observer and the other charge.
>>>> Where "observer" means the measuring tool.
>>>>
>>>> The entities are not independent in so far as any observer will see
>>>> them in a different way. That is not a consequence of quantum
>>>> mechanics but very simply the consequence of the fact that in a
>>>> moving system the tools change (like rulers contract and clocks are
>>>> slowed down) and so their measurement results differ from a tool
>>>> measuring while being at rest. This is the reason that we need a
>>>> Lorentz transformation to compare physical entities in one moving
>>>> frame to entities in another moving frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> I and QM claims there is no objective measurement independent
>>>>> reality.
>>>>>
>>>> That may be the case but has nothing to do with our discussion here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame dilates and shrinks so that
>>>>> when raw measurements are made and no correction is applied we may
>>>>> notobserve 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.
>>>>>
>>>> You are permanently referring to coordinate frames. But we are
>>>> treating here physical facts and not mathematical ones. So
>>>> coordinates should be omitted as an argument as I have proposed it
>>>> earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> As soon as the observer moves in the same frame, i.e. with the same
>>>> speed vector as one of the charges, he does not see a magnetic
>>>> field. In the deduction of the magnetic field which I have attached
>>>> (from a talk at a conference last year) the magnetic force is
>>>> defined by the equation:
>>>>
>>>> where v and u are the speeds of two charges, q1 and q2, , with
>>>> respect to the observer. y is the distance and gamma the Lorentz
>>>> factor in the set up shown.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> I guess that you know the Coriolis force. This force is somewhat
>>>> similar to magnetism. It is in effect for one observer but not for
>>>> another one depending on the observer's motion. And there is
>>>> nothing mysterious about it, and also quantum mechanics is not
>>>> needed for an explanation.
>>>>
>>>> In your logic you would have to say: If there is no Coriolis force
>>>> then there is no inertial mass. But that is clearly not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> The MM experiment is easily explained by the fact that there is
>>>> contraction in the direction of motion. Nothing more is needed to
>>>> explain the null-result. In the view of Einstein space contracts
>>>> and in the view of Lorentz the apparatus contracts as the internal
>>>> fields contract. And the latter is a known phenomenon in physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> An indication that mass is not fundamental is the fact that mass
>>>> can be converted into energy. On the other hand charge cannot be
>>>> converted into energy; this can be taken as an argument that it is
>>>> fundamental.
>>>>>
>>>> Anything still controversial? Then please explain.
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> *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
>>>>>>> <a href="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
>>>>>> <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/20180301/34151bd9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cmmpoehdbdlkmfdj.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180301/34151bd9/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jchaklmahldlaada.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180301/34151bd9/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gdfpdmnggfigcpkp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180301/34151bd9/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20180301/34151bd9/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list