[General] Photon

[Chip Akins]

Hi Albrecht

 

In your comments below you said…

“If one assumes that a charge permanently emits exchange particles to all directions where the rate of emission reflects the value of the charge, then it has some simple consequences. The distance dependency of 1/r2 follows geometrically. And also the relativistic contraction of fields is an easy consequence of it. (I have used this fact to deduce relativistic deduction before I got the information that Oliver Heaviside deduced it from Maxwell's equations.) “

 

The big problem I have with this approach is the fact that we do not see real photons constantly radiated from charged particles in order to create the field in this manner. And if these photon exchange particles were real then they would certainly be detectible as photons normally are. So since there are other ways for fields to exist which are relativistically transformed, and this approach you have suggested requires photons to exist which we do not detect in nature, I would say that this is not a realistic solution to the problem of what causes the force of interaction of charge fields.

 

While your solution is mentally stimulating, and provides an apparent solution to part of the problem, it creates a situation which is not supported by the evidence.

 

To assume that these are real photons, but we cannot detect them in any way except by the charge field they create, is actually to say that these are not real photons, but are “virtual” particles.

 

The experimental evidence that charge propagates faster than light is conveniently ignored by mainstream physics because that would violate the hollowed premise of SR that no information exchange can be faster than light. And it seems that SR must be protected at all cost.  But there are two aspects to SR which are apparently in error when the experimental evidence is evaluated.  1. All motion is relative, and 2. Nothing can travel faster than light.

 

Chip



From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 11:55 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Hi Chip,

 

sorry for the delay but I am just back from a physical conference here. 

 

Thank you for the link to the papers about the Liénard-Wiechert potential. I am presently anyway active to understand this but find it still quite difficult. But will come back on it as soon as I understand more.

 

You will find my comments to your consideration down in the text.

 

Am 16.03.2018 um 14:32 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Albrecht

 

Yes. See the attached for some references to the velocity of the Coulomb field (charge).

 

Feynman found the speed appeared to be close to instantaneous, but tried to resolve the issue by using the “static field” approach, or the indefinite existence approach. Neither of which are sustainable under serious further scrutiny.

 

As it turns out, since the force of charge drops off quickly with distance, and what we measure is the sum of all charges, so it would be quite difficult to communicate using charge. Even if we had a good controlled means of creating and destroying charge fields at will.

I would expect that creation and deletion of charges is not necessary to modulate of field. You may build a dipole with a changing base, that should generally work. But I am not sure about the behaviour at distance. 



 

You commented… To your last comment: If one assumes that a charge is an atomic thing - like a bullet - then its stable existence is a simple consequence. Such kind of bullet can move through empty space, why not?

 

My problem is not with a bullet being able to travel through empty space.  

The problem I have is what does the “bullet” consist of in that sort of scenario?

In my view the bullet is an elementary charge. And a charge is in my view an atomic object, which is the basic particle  from which everything in our physical world is built. As it is the most stable institution which our world has. 

 

For me it seems a much more plausible explanation is that particles are made of energy and space. And that space has properties which describe the stability, creation, and destruction of particles made of energy.

I do not find it plausible that energy is something elementary. Energy is very variable. If an object has energy then this energy is different if seen from another frame. Also relativistically the amount of energy changes. All this does not happen to a charge. It is the same if seen from any fame. It is not changed by relativistic transformations. From this my conclusion is that charge is the most fundamental object in physics. 



 

Another problem is the notion that charge can be mediated by virtual photons.  First, mainstream physics admits that virtual photons are not photons. So what are they?  And how is it that the phase and frequency of these “virtual photons” can automatically change so that charge is either attractive or repulsive, and they automatically adjust for all distances, changing phase and frequency so that they behave as they are supposed to in order to create what we measure of the charge field?  This is such a complex and unlikely scenario that I simply don’t see it being a valid model for charge.  It really seems ludicrous to me. I have run the math required for particles to be the mediators of fields.  In classes, and textbooks, the problems created by this approach are generally ignored, and only the portions of such a scenario which fit the theory are discussed. That’s part of the reason they had to name them “virtual; photons”. But that set of logic simply does not work, in part because it removes the description of reasonable physical cause from this speculative approach.

Not only electrical charge but all forces are by present understanding mediated by exchange particles, not by virtual particles. The difference of both is that virtual particles (should they exist) only have a short life according  to the uncertainty relation of QM, whereas exchange particles have to have an unlimited lifetime as the electric forces for instance act up to infinity. 

If one assumes that a charge permanently emits exchange particles to all directions where the rate of emission reflects the value of the charge, then it has some simple consequences. The distance dependency of 1/r2 follows geometrically. And also the relativistic contraction of fields is an easy consequence of it. (I have used this fact to deduce relativistic deduction before I got the information that Oliver Heaviside deduced it from Maxwell's equations.) 



 

You commented that time is a human concept.  Yes. It is a method we have developed to create a metric for the serial nature of interactions and events.  But that serial nature of events is not a human fabrication, it is the nature of the universe. So we choose to name this thing we observe as “time” and create means to measure it.  That does not mean we invented the things which cause what we observe as time.

I agree that in case of two events both have a timely sequence. This seems to be nature. But the understanding of a time scale is a human concept. - On the other hand there have been physicists who have started to set up a physical theory without any use of time. This seemed to have some chance.



 

A similar explanation would then of course apply to the concept of energy. And to the concept of almost everything else we observe.  The fact that we have found ways to incorporate these items into our thought processes does not make them our inventions, and does not make them less real.

I think that the natural rule in this case is the conservation of momentum. Conservation of energy can be deduced from this in the cases where it is appropriate. Conservation of energy is limited by QM (uncertainty) and by special relativity where it can be temporarily violated. In contrast to charge.



 

Chip

Albrecht



 

 





From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 7:20 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Hi Chip,

 

I am very surprised about what you say about Feynman and according experiments: the info that electric (maybe also other) fields move unrestrictedly with respect to c.  Can you give us a reference for that? - I am surprised because if that is true and works in practise, it should be possible to stablish communication links which are not restricted to c. As far as I know this was never observed. And on the other hand also in the mind of Feynman are electric forces mediated by photons; and photons move in the general opinion at c. 

 

I still think that energy and its conservation is a human concept, and it is undoubtedly a useful concept. Like "time" is a human concept, also undoubtedly a useful one. The conservation of energy (and so its definition) was introduced historically when it was found that in the conversion of mechanical motion to heat and vice versa this is a helpful concept. And in this case (like in many others) it can be deduced.

 

To your last comment: If one assumes that a charge is an atomic thing - like a bullet - then its stable existence is a simple consequence. Such kind of bullet can move through empty space, why not?

 

Albrecht

 

 

Am 15.03.2018 um 18:39 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Albrecht

 

Thank you for taking the time and for the explanation.

 

Feynman showed that the interaction of charge is, and must be, practically instantaneous. But this has been principally ignored.

Experiments have been conducted which indicate Feynman was quite correct in those calculations. And these have been ignored, even though they are quite well done and compelling.

 

Assuming that charge propagates at the speed of light is a popular belief, so popular in fact that items like the calculations and experiments listed above are ignored by mainstream physics. This is of course because of the influence that SR has had on the physics community.  Every possible avenue is used to defend SR and to try to make the data fit SR, rather than accepting the evidence and adjusting portions of our theories as required.

 

I know we agree regarding a more Lorentzian relativity, but I also think that charge “propagates” at speeds much faster than light, and that charge is NOT mediated by “particles”.  And I feel, as Chandra has commented, that space is the container for all energy, and is a tension based medium.

 

My problem with an empty space is that there is no means to explain the constitution of particles if space is empty. Particles must have a way to exist (properties of space in my view), which allow particles to form and behave as we observe.

 

In that sort of view, there is no violation of the conservation of energy.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:51 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Hi Chip,

 

I have to apologize to you - and to Wolf - that I am delayed to answer your mails. Next week I join a conference here where I plan to give four talks. That keeps me very busy.

 

To the conservation of energy: I agree that this is fulfilled in the practical cases. But not in every case. My example of a charge which additionally  interacts with another charge in the universe is a difficult example. 

 

Assume the case that an electron interacts with another one, maybe both are inside the same atom. That is an easy case and energy will be locally preserved. But assume another charge outside, then the reaction of the electron has to reflect that in order to conserve energy. Now assume that another charged object orbits the moon. Then at certain moments it moves towards the earth and at other moments away from the earth. The effect of its charge to our electron is different in both cases. This can in principle affect our interaction process, no problem so far. But the motion vector at which our electron will see this external charge is different from its true motion and position. The delay, which is about one second in the case of the mood, means a violation of the energy balance. So the conservation of energy is violated, at least for a limited time. 

 

But there may also be a charged particle which moves at very high speed, close to c, away from us. In this case our electron will cause an energy imbalance for a very long time, maybe forever. Conservation of energy needs - to be true and valid - the connection of all elements of the universe without any delay. And this is not the reality as we know as propagation of forces is restricted to c.

 

Should the whole universe be a closed system then it can be assumed that energy is conserved  globally (even though not testable). But it cannot be conserved locally as the local process does not get the information of the other influences in time - as I have written above.

 

What is your problem with the picture of a particle?

 

Your question how a frame in an empty space is realized is a good one. I have a concept for it, and I found that I am not alone with it. But I developed the following on my own.

 

In this model the reference for the absolute frame is the speed of light. In elementary particles there is a permanent motion with c (Zitterbewegung) of the constituents of the particle. These constituents are mass-less. Forces are mediated and transferred by exchange particles which as well move at c and have no mass. (These will be the mediators you are looking for.) So every interaction between particles means that these constituents interact via the mass-less exchange particles, which means that it is an elastic interaction which only changes the direction of a particle but never its speed. That is a fundamental (and constant) type of exchange. In this way the speed of light will never change as long as only two objects of this kind interact.

 

How was this unique speed caused? I think that it was during the first short time after the Big Bang. In that moment all these basic objects were extremely close together so that multiple interactions happened. And in this way the speed was aligned to each other; by multiple contacts. Later when the particle were at distance to each other, this process could not continue, so the speed was conserved. 

 

Constancy of c means here of course constancy with relation to a certain motion state. As it was understood by Lorentz. And this is most probably the motion state of the Big Bang.

 

Albrecht

 

 

 

Am 13.03.2018 um 13:09 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Albrecht

 

The conservation of energy “law” is that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. 

And that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  

Of course it is not possible to have a totally isolated system because we cannot prevent radiation and cannot prevent particles from interacting in some form. 

 

But I am not seeing any violation of the conservation of energy in your example.  All of the energy still exists.

 

In fact I see no evidence that energy can be either created or destroyed. Which is conservation of energy.

 

I do feel that charge is a specific form of distortion of space. Induced by energy. A compression of sorts.

 

The point particle concept is a quite naive and unworkable model for many reasons, and is just incorrect.

 

But one thing is a question for me.  How can you feel there is a fixed frame of space… if space itself is nothing?  

If there is nothing there, then there is no means in space to impose a fixed frame.

 

I also believe that a more Lorentzian fixed frame is the correct definition of space. 

But I don’t see any way that space can have properties (like ε0 and μ0), and a fixed frame, and still be totally empty.

 

The basic concept of force at a distance, which has intrigued us for centuries, seems to hint that space cannot just be empty.

So I feel that space itself is the mediator of charge, and all forces, and the fabric upon which all particles are built.

 

Chip

 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:40 PM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Hi Chip,

 

I do agree that we, when developing a theory, should start with something which is as fundamental as possible and derive as much as we can as emergent quantities, the more the better as indication of a well usable theory.

 

This is my goal as well. And here I have developed an opinion (or position) which is a bit different from yours. Let me explain. 

 

I do not follow the position that energy is fundamental. I have read that some of our participants here have used this as an argument. There are two arguments which I have to come to a different result: 1)  Energy is not always conserved. We know it from particle physics, particularly if we use exchange particles which mediate forces. These exchange particles can move from a source into the universe and if they meet a partner (e.g. another charge) maybe after a very long time, they are able to transfer energy. So they have to possess energy and in case of a charge they carry energy away form the source which will in most cases not come back. So a permanent violation of conservation. )And this is not covered by the uncertainty relation.) And further in the context of special relativity, there are cases of temporary violation if a transfer of energy, momentum or whatever needs time to go from one object to the other one.

2) I do not accept energy as fundamental because, using my model, I can deduce the conservation of energy. But I can only deduce it in the cases where no violation (as mentioned above) occurs. So this seems to fit better to the physical reality than the assumption that conservation of energy is a fundamental law. 

 

You have mentioned the known relations: E=mc2, E=hv. These relations are also not fundamental in my view as I can deduce them using my model. Have you ever seen them deduced? Yes, Einstein has deduced E=mc2, but the relation E=hv was never deduced to my knowledge, but both follow from my model, the first one much easier than Einstein has done it, the latter one the first time to my knowledge. Planck at least did not deduce it. -  The fact that a photon has energy is a matter of course, it is a particle and energy is a normal property of a particle. A charge in a field (of another charge) of course has energy. But a particle in its own field does not as there is no force on it. 

 

If it is said (as John Williamson does) that a charge has energy by itself then one can ask easily: How can I use this energy? Or how transfer this energy to another system? I do not know any case so that this statement is theory in the bad sense as it can never be checked or falsified.

 

When Maxwell developed his formalism, he did not have the understanding of photons as carriers of the EM waves. This was introduced much later by Einstein. So the understanding of Maxwell with respect to these questions does not help.

 

If you are able to derive a charge from more fundamental objects, please let us know. I know one argument where this may come from. In present particle theory it is assumed that a charge is in fact compressed charge density. And this compression process of course needs energy and the result of it has energy. And there is another problem in present understanding. As the electron is generally assumed to be point-like, this compression energy must be extreme. It is not compatible with the known or assumed particle properties. 

But why believe this? Why not assume that a charge is an "atomic" occurrence? I do not see a clear experimental evidence for one or the other position, so why not take the assumption which makes physics easier?

 

Why to follow the Lorentzian view? In his view space is simple, just the emptiness around us. Maybe this assumption is too simple to explain the physical phenomena. But I am busy with this question since a long time, and up to now I did not find any argument that this simple assumption about space is insufficient. And time in his sense is a human concept to explain oscillations. - This was also already argued by Chandra.   -  All relativistic phenomena can be understood if following Lorentz, and the understanding is much easier than with Einstein. And another benefit: The problems of Dark Matter and Dark Energy do not exist in the world of Lorentz. And those are generally said to be "the greatest problems in present physics". Isn't this a clear indication?

 

I hope that I have something here where you can follow.

 

Albrecht

 

 

Am 12.03.2018 um 16:30 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Albrecht

 

Thank you.

 

When we observe that charge possesses energy as John has pointed out, and we see that E=mc2, so that mass is also comprised of energy, and we observe that E=hv, and ωE= ½ ε0 E2 so that photons (electromagnetics) are comprised of energy. It leaves us with the consideration that actually energy itself may be more fundamental, and that charge, forces, mass, Planck’s constant, etc. are emergent properties, all caused by energy.

 

There was a time when the objective of physics was to explain everything possible about the nature of our universe. So logically it would seem that we should be eventually able to identify the cause for all emergent properties (properties which are the result of energy or comprised of energy) like charge and mass.

 

There has been an argument that we cannot know more, starting about the time of the Copenhagen Interpretation, and I completely disagree with this philosophy.  There are so many different ways for us to gather information that we can absolutely learn more, if we try to assemble all we have studied, observed, and measured into a coherent model.

 

So I have to conclude that a theory which begins with charge as fundamental is simply incomplete and a “shortcut” which moves us toward our objective, but does not reach the goal. Especially if the theory assumes that charge is fundamental and that charge does not contain energy.

 

I find your model quite interesting, and have seen many comparisons and parallels between your model and the observable. But I have also been able to imagine a model where the principles are causal, and derived from a more fundamental basis.  A model where charge, forces, momentum and mass are explained and are emergent properties.

 

We have different perspectives and goals.  Perhaps your theory meets your goals.  But my objective is to understand what charge is, what particles are, what mass is, what causes the measurable electromagnetic fields, etc.  And I finally have made some very good headway in this endeavor.

 

There have been many theories proposed which are all based at least in part on the observables and known.  We each choose what portions of the historical theories we want to believe and what we want to reject.  But I felt too swayed by the opinion of others while reviewing our theoretical history, and decided to do a personal logical evaluation of what we observe and what we believe, and why we believe.  What I found is that logically a more Lorentzian view of space and relativity is supportable by the evidence. And that we can explain much (perhaps all) of what we observe if we discard portions of popular theories which are actually logically arbitrary.  It is somewhat surprising how simple much of it becomes.

 

Chip

 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:56 AM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Hi Chip,

 

every theory in physics has to start at/with some basics. The basics in my model are charges. ("The world is built by charges"). So there is no deduction of charges from anything else as they are the basics. And I have two charges: the electric charge and the strong charge. The electric charge is described by the elementary charge e0 and the the constant epsilon. And the strong charge is described by the expression h*c. (It has historical reasons that it is connected to c as Planck did not have this understanding).

 

About the other forces: The weak force is in my view in fact the strong force but the according reactions have a very small coupling. If you want, I can explain why the coupling is so weak. And gravitation is in fact not a force on its own but is a side effect of the other forces, mainly the strong force. The mechanism of this force causes the weakness of gravity and the fact that ii is only attracting.

 

It also explains the phenomenon of Dark Matter. But details perhaps not now and here.

But thanks for your interest and your questions.

 

Albrecht

 

Am 12.03.2018 um 13:24 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Albrecht

 

I think you also have to assume a force between the two particles in your model besides just h and the elementary charge.

 

This is indeed a very interesting model, but it does not explain charge, nor does it explain the cause for Planck’s constant.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Chip

 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:11 AM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Hi John and Chip and all,

sorry to object. A charge can have lightspeed and physics have cases of this. 

We only know elementary particles with charge, which are having mass. For these particles it is of course true that they cannot reach c. But if we assume a charge alone and separate from mass, it does not have energy on its own, and so not any mass. There is no physical rule that they must have mass.

 

Example is the Zitterbewegung of the electron. It means a permanent motion at c of the internal charge.

According to David Hestenes, the Zitterbewegung of the charge (and so at c) is the cause of the magnetic moment of e.g. the electron.

And according to my particle model the sub-particles of the electron (and of other particles), which are massless, permanently move at c. >From this mechanism not only the Bohr magneton follows exactly (without any need for QM). Also the mass of the electron follows from it with high precision (almost 10-6). And this works without any new parameters or any adaptation. The only parameters in this model are Planck's constant and the elementary charge e0, nothing more. Isn't this a proof for a model?

 

Albrecht

 

Am 12.03.2018 um 08:19 schrieb John Williamson:

Dear all,

You cannot have a charge at lightspeed. A charge is an electric field divergence. It therefore always has a (rest) mass associated with it - the integral energy in the electric field in the frame at which the charge is at rest. A charge at lightspeed therefore has infinite energy and is not physical.

Just saying.

Regards, JGW.

  _____  

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [ <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:12 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

Hi Richard

 

Question. In your helical model of the photon is each half of the photon an elementary charge or half an elementary charge?

 

Chip

 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 10:00 PM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Albrecht Giese  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <genmail at a-giese.de>
Subject: Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles

 

Albrecht

Answers below

I'm also making progress on the physics chapter 4 of my cognitive Action Theory Book for Routledge press. I think a good case can be made for considering ourselves to be living inside a black hole of a universe consisting of our own material. Our own material  is the physical phase of a self explanatory/measurement activity cycle (A la Wheeler) and thereby generates its own space. In such a space  all the EM effects of Maxwell and Lorentz  would be valid by self consistency, since such a Universe runs at its own time rate and contains its own 1st person observer , which is YOU. I'm looking for readers and comments from interested parties. Its not trivial. Chapter 4 and appendices are about 100 pages since this is new action based physics.

I am sending  appendix 1 to peak your interest. It makes the case that the applicability of Calculus to physical reality is limited and the failure to understand these limits leads to conceptual errors such as the concept of a space time continuum. I think I am following the kind of reassessment of our scientific methods  Chandra is advocating.

let me know what you think

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com> 

On 3/8/2018 10:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Wolf,

I am going to also answer your other mail. But this one first.

Am 07.03.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:

Albrecht:

As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is always the frame defined by the observer , which is always the 1st person you, you cannot get out of yourself and in that sense makes this frame a fixed frame. Each of us lives in our own space and refers all our experiences and experimental results back to that space

Following Einstein it is true that every observer, which means every measuring tool, refers to his/its own space. But following Lorentz the space is universal. The measurement tools are cheating the observer by hiding the difference between the different motion states.

By universal do you mean every observer has his own space experience or do you mean there is an independent observer independent space out there ?

 

WE must discuss my contention that we are always looking through the coordinate frame which is the Hilbert space defined by our detector arrays - the error in SR pictures is that they show the observer riding along with a coordinate frame and than assume the observer can see what is out there including clock dials and rod lengths as though he were god outside the material  looking in. But the observer must be restricted to look at a TV monitor inside the coordinate frame that displays the result of detector interactions

Please do not overlook that the so called "Hilbert space" is not a physical space but a mathematical tool to describe vectors in a convenient way. 

Albrecht I keep trying to make progress by suggesting new ways to look at things and you keep tweling me I'm wrong because i am not conforming to the old way of looking at things. Hilbert space is describe as a mathematical tool in every text book on Quantum Mechanics I'm fully aware of that but I also believe this is a limited and restrictive interpretation. If you actually examine actual experiments from simple photon polarzation measurements involving two state to comlex position measurements involving a spectrum of detectors in a bubble chaber you will notice that the mathematical Hilbert space is always the the detector cell "through which we look" -by that I mean into which we project the interpretation of the measurement interactions recorded on our side of the detector cells.

If we follow Lorentz position (what I do) then all measures like clocks and rods change as soon as we move with relation to the basic fixed frame. But we know the changes (which is Lorentzian RT) and can compensate for them to a certain degree. 

I agree wth that as long as you realize that this basic fixed frame is defined by the material from which the observer - in the end always YOU is built.

Another issue regarding the elimination of the magnetic field. If there are more than two charges moving in say three independent directions I think there is no Lorenz transform that eliminates the magnetic field for all the particles , Am I right on this? 

This is a good question, and I have an idea for this. But I did not make a quantitative calculation.

I think that also in this case a motion state can be found where a magnetic field disappears. And I base this on the following consideration:
Such magnetic field which you have in mind can also be caused by one electric charge like in the standard case which has the appropriate motion state. Because also for magnetic fields a superposition is possible. How can the state of this related single electric charge be determined? Assume you have such field then you take an (electric) test charge. And then you measure the force on this test charge if it is at rest with respect to your frame. Then you move this charge in arbitrary directions and determine the Lorentz force depending on the three possible directions in space. So you have at least 4 measurements, which is the force at rest and at the three dimensions of the magnetic field. Now you can determine the value and the motion state of the single electric charge which will cause the same measurement. And with respect to this single charge you have the situation which we have discussed before, which means you can find an own motion state for which the magnetism disappears.

I think what you are saying is that the magnetic field of all the charges can be vector summed into one composite field, and this field can duplicated by a substitute average source charge moving in the 
appropriate direction thus reducing the problem to a two charge problem  to which a Lorenz transformation is applied. I have not done the calculation but my guess is such a scheme only works under the point particle assumption since but the local magnetic field environment around a test charge would not be duplicated. However in any case it seems one wuld go through the use of magnetic forces in order to make them disappear. Why bother wy not simply accept the fact that bith gravity and electric forc categories have a range and a velocity dependence , and in fact possibly  acceleration and all the derivatives - it just seems easier.

  

 

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com> 

Albrecht








On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Hi Chip,

Einstein used indeed later in his life the word "ether", but in a different sense. He did not change his mind in the way that he permanently and finally refused the understanding that there exists a fixed frame in the world.

But in his view space has properties. One property is the known assumption that space and space-time are curved. And Einstein tried for the rest of his life to find and to define more properties of the space in the expectation that the existence of fields can be deduced from those properties. Up to the end of his life he tried to find in this way a / the "Theory of Everything". He was, as we know, not successful with it.

But he never gave up his denial of the possibility that there is a fixed frame. (I refer here particularly to the book of Ludwik Kostro, "Einstein and the Ether", where Kostro has thoroughly investigated everything what Einstein has said and published up to the end of his life.) 

Albrecht

 

Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip Akins:

Gentlemen

 

Later in Einstein’s career he reversed his opinion about the “ether”.

 

As Einstein pointed out, “There Is an Important argument In favor of the hypothesis of the ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all physical properties to empty space”… and he said, “the ether remains still absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies and on the propagation of light is conceived as independent of every kind of physical influence.” 

 

But the physics community was already so attached to the idea that space was empty that Einstein’s later comments on the subject have been principally ignored.

 

Chip

 

 

 

 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
To: Wolfgang Baer  <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com> <wolf at nascentinc.com>;  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Roychoudhuri, Chandra  <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
Subject: Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles

 

Wolf:

 

Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:

I see no conflict between our understanding of magnetism and coriolis forces and both are interpretation that can be created or not by the way we look at phenomena.

WE start to disagree what I because we agree want to look at the physics of the observer as an integral and necessary part of how phenomena are perceived. And this is where we should be focusing our discussion. What assumptions are valid and what physics would we develop if we change our assumptions?

more comments added

... and some comments back.








Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com> 

On 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

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.

OK








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.

OK








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.

OK









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.

So we agree until we get to this point








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.

Does the fact that you simply are not recognizing that it is your first person perspective in which "empty" space appears that is your fundamental experience and any assumption that such experience is due to a real space is Theory. Do you not ask how is it that I am able to create the sensations I have. Are you and your experiences not part of the reality and therefore must be explained as part of your if you are to have a comprehensive theory. AND there is no explanation in classic or relativistic physics for the consciousness of the observer. One must begin to think in Quantum terms

We know that our brain gives us wrong or biased information about this world. Because our brains have developed to help us to survive, not to have insights. But as a guide to help us to survive it can only function if our understanding of the world is not too far away from the way as the world in fact is. 

As far as I can see, as long as people try to understand this world they (at least the scientists) know the problem that our brain and our senses are misleading us. So this general problem of understanding is in the mind of the people and was in their mind at least since the time of ancient Greece. The only question is how to start with an according investigation. One way to cope with this problem is and was to build measurement tools which give us results independent of our mood. These tools are continuously developed. And we are of course not at the end of this development. But we can only develop and correct our tools if there are results and hints which give us informations on errors. Without those informations we are playing with dice, and these dice do not have 6 numbers but many thousand numbers. Does this playing make any sense for us?

Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with the fact that our understanding is related to our brain. This assumption that a physical process depends on the consciousness of the observer has a different origin. Heisenberg found himself completely unable and helpless to understand the particle-wave phenomenon. So he once said that we have to go back to Plato and so he threw away all that progress which Newton has brought into our physical understanding. And on the other hand he neglected the proposal of Louis de Broglie about the particle-wave question because at that time he was already so much related to a mysterious view that he was no more able to leave that. - At this point I agree to Einstein and de Broglie that a mystification of physics will not give us progress.








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.

OK so you make the assumption that we do have an independent ether. That is the old "naive reality" assumption and classic mechanics and EM theory is built on this assumption. But quantum theory is no longer built on this assumption.

Ether is not compatible with Einstein's understanding of relativity. But also QM is not compatible with Einstein's relativity. So I do not see any specific connection of QM to the absence of an ether. QM simple does not to care.

Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and not helpful. Lorentz told him situations which by Lorentz view are not understandable without ether. Einstein repeated his denial of an ether but he could not answer the questions of Lorentz. 









So is the ether related to the fixed frame ? What ether is attached to my fixed frame? Are they different ethers? Or is there one ether, and we are all material objects moving in that ether who just happen to be able to interpret some configurations of material as space with objects moving in them. why should our mental display of our experience be anything but one possible way of building a mental display along a very very long path of evolution. Do you really believe you are the pinnacle or end of that process?

The ether of Lorentz does not mean anything more than the existence of a fixed frame. And in the view of Ludwik Kostro and particularly my view, the photons of our light are giving us this reference. All photons move with the same - absolute - speed c, and this speed is related to something. I guess to the position and motion state of the Big Bang. If we look at the CMB we see a different red shift depending on the direction. And we can quite easily calculate which motion with respect to our earth we must have so that this red shift becomes isotropic. This tells us what the reference of the ether most probably is.








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.

SEE ATTACHED

Thank you.








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.

I agree and this agreement is what gave us a common goal of finding a better explanation.

Hopefully
Albrecht








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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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

            dF12  = - I1*I2 (dl1 ● dl2)*X12 /(c2 * |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 field   is 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 / Rtn2)

And it is possible to introduce a field 

                                    E = SUM over all n (  Qn / Rtn2)

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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf 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 FE and the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force FB 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, FB, FE 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 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. 

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-mail wolf 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> 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:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 c2 = (1/ϵµ) which you have mentioned. This equation should be better written as µ = (1/c2ϵ)  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 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??”

 

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> 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:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 dζ. 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 = dζt∙ut + dζx∙ux + dζy∙uy + dζz∙uz +… dζf∙uf +…,

            where the uf’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 =  dζt∙dζx∙dζy∙dζz∙…∙dζf∙… .

            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 Fcm,Fmc, and backward propagating in time force Fmc*,Fcm* 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 = ΔTw = ∫dζt “ 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-mail wolf 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-mail wolf 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 <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 phys 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 <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 Wolf 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 phys 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 Wolf 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 phys 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 Wolf 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 phys 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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>

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180328/7dd743f6/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/20180328/7dd743f6/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/20180328/7dd743f6/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180328/7dd743f6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180328/7dd743f6/attachment-0001.png>