 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / July 2008Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!
I dont understand my brain anymore Some days I understand relativity perfectly, while next day it makes no any sense Then again I understand relativity, then again not What is going on here !!! They impose that in order to have a theory which makes sense and is real, it must have mathematical beauty Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!! I see no any beauty anywhere, I need some answers here Why I cant understand relativity periodically? > I dont understand my brain anymore > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why I cant understand relativity periodically? Here's an idea: On one of the days when you "understand relativity perfectly" solve a *quantitative* exercise, one where you have to apply your understanding to compute something specific. With modern internet tools, you can now search up many such problems actually given in college courses. Go step-by-step, and, as they say in school, "show your work". Get someone who really knows to check it; you could even post your solution here. When the day comes that it makes no sense, look at how you solved the problem; find the first step in your previous work that you do not understand, then really rework it. Push yourself. Re-check your factual premises. You solved it once, you can solve it again. Try, retry, and retry again. If you are absolutely positively just plane stuck, ask. Study, study study the answer. No "oh, yes of course"; there's a reason you could do it once but later failed; get down to the core with brutal honesty. Then find the second step that now make no sense...  Signature--Bryan > > I dont understand my brain anymore > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the problem; find the first step in your previous work that you do > not understand, then really rework it. Push yourself. Re-check your Thank you Sir But I never push myself. Either I understand something or I do not. Your "pushing" for me means, forcing to understand while I do not. I cant force myself to understand when I do not. I cant understand how other relativists force themself to understand while they do not Thank you for your input. > factual premises. You solved it once, you can solve it again. Try, > retry, and retry again. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > --Bryan >>> I dont understand my brain anymore >>> Some days I understand relativity perfectly, while next day it makes [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Your "pushing" for me means, forcing to understand while I do not. By "push yourself", I meant put forth serious effort. In this case, to regain the understanding you previously had. Is it really true, what you wrote: "I never push myself"? If so, that's sad. How can you expect to accomplish anything of any significance? > I cant force myself to understand when I do not. But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: "Some days I understand relativity perfectly." > I cant understand how other relativists force themself to understand > while they do not That's because we don't. We don't force ourselves to believe what seems false; we push ourselves to solve hard problems. "Understand" does not mean "believe". Could one understand relativity but not believe it? Yes, at least theoretically. That's not what happens here on s.p.r, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. > Thank you for your input. I'd rather you take it seriously than thank me for it but disregard it. Signature--Bryan > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: > "Some days I understand relativity perfectly." So, when are you going to understand the Lorentz transform --- particularly the relative simultaneity part? > "Understand" does not mean "believe". Believing is indeed a form of learning under the Orwellian educational system. <shrug> ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING > Could one understand relativity but not believe it? If one truly understands the Lorentz transform, the only logical recourse is to reject it. <shrug> Why? The irresolvable twin’s paradox. > Yes, at least theoretically. No, it must be done logically not through a theological belief in disguising as a theoretical something. <shrug> > That's not what happens here on s.p.r, but that doesn't mean > it's impossible. The above sentence can mean just about anything you want anyone to believe in. <shrug> > > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Why? The irresolvable twin’s paradox. What is unresolvable about the twin paradox? The result makes perfect sense. Why do you insist that it doesn't make sense, when it does? > > Yes, at least theoretically. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The above sentence can mean just about anything you want anyone to > believe in. <shrug> > > > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > > > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > sense. > Why do you insist that it doesn't make sense, when it does? Apparently logical, but ... Why a speed, of light or whatever, because I don't care, should make a tween younger? > > > Yes, at least theoretically. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The above sentence can mean just about anything you want anyone to > > believe in. <shrug> > > > > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > > > > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Why a speed, of light or whatever, because I don't care, should make a > tween younger? Well, let's stretch a couple of overtight rubber bands. (Not your fault, it's just an artifact of "common sense" that adds layers of paint over what is really going on.) First of all, it doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light that causes this. It has to do with the fact that one twin executes a more or less straight line through spacetime (look up "worldline" to see what this means), and the other twin does not. You've been raised to believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This is because you're used to measuring Euclidean distances, and there's a plus sign between all the terms in the Euclidean distance: (distance) = square root of [x^2 + y^2 + z^2]. (It takes work to *prove* that a straight line produces the smallest d, but ultimately it stems from those + signs.) But the analog of distance in spacetime is "interval", and in spacetime, the straightest line between two points is the *longest* distance, and that's because there's a minus sign in there: (interval) = square root of [t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2] (Again, the proof takes work, but hopefully the germ idea you see.) Secondly, you could if necessary use the Euclidean rule to find distance, even if x and z distances were measured in different units -- say miles and feet -- but it would be unnecessary work involving a conversion factor somewhere. There might even be a physical meaning to z/x by using different units -- say the grade of a road in feet per mile -- but overall, there's no *physical* difference between z and x. Likewise, there's not much *physical* difference between x and t, even though we have a physical meaning to x/t (speed), and so it might save some effort, especially if calculating intervals, if we just use the same units for x and t. Say, meters for both, or seconds for both. In this case, c is nothing other than a *conversion factor* that gets us from meters to seconds or vice versa, with no more physical meaning than the conversion factor from feet to miles. If we flex and adopt the good idea in the previous paragraph, dispensing with our historical habit, then c becomes just 1, which is not really a peculiar number at all. And in fact, it *still* doesn't have to do with light, really. It has to do with the maximum slope of worldlines for all real objects. And it just so happens that light is one of the few things (because it's massless) that can actually sit on that maximum slope. > > > > > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > > > > > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > more or less straight line through spacetime (look up "worldline" to > see what this means), Why bother? Since we are not in the business of cobbling up fairytails, a formalised spacetime can be referenced which legitimatly relates mass, energy and the speed of light. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html <<Despite the obvious fallacies underlying these popular confusions, and despite the manifest logical consistency of special relativity, it is nevertheless true that the so-called twins paradox, interpreted in a more profound sense, does highlight a fundamental epistemological shortcoming of the principle of inertia, on which both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity are based. Naturally if we simply stipulate that one of the twins is in inertial motion the entire time and the other is not, then the resolution of the "paradox" is trivial, but the stipulation of "inertial motion" for one of the twins begs the very question that motivates the paradox (in its more profound form), namely, how are inertial worldlines distinguished from the set of all possible worldlines? In a sense, the only answer special relativity can give is that the inertial worldline between two events is the one with the greatest lapse of proper time, which is clearly of no help in resolving which of the twins' worldlines is "inertial", because we don't know a priori which twin has the greater lapse of proper [space] time - that's what we're trying to determine! >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm Sue... [fairytail ingredients flushed] > > > > > > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > > > > > > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > namely, how are inertial worldlines distinguished > from the set of all possible worldlines? It is not done on the basis of the shape of the worldline. It is based on whether Newton's first law (or if you like, conservation of momentum) *holds*. That is, if a worldline is straight, then it is *truly* straight if Newton's first law holds for that object. If Newton's first law does not hold, then it doesn't matter whether you've constructed a frame in which the worldline appears straight, it is not truly straight. Another simple way to judge in a less dynamical way would be to ask whether, in this frame, the world lines of light are straight. > In a sense, > the only answer special relativity can give is that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > proper [space] time - that's what we're > trying to determine! >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm And as you can see, I do not agree that this is the only recourse available. This is another example of your confounding yourself by hand-picking web references that tend to confound you, and then whining that web references haven't been cleaned up to make things less confounding for you. > Sue... > > [fairytail ingredients flushed] [...] http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > And as you can see, I do not agree that this is the only recourse > available. This is another example of your confounding yourself by > hand-picking web references that tend to confound you, and then > whining that web references haven't been cleaned up to make things > less confounding for you. Then give us a demonstration. Half the masses in the universe are moving toward you. Half the masses in the universe are moving away from you. Their gravito-inertial field is attenuated this way: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html Using Einstein's relativity: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Kindly demonstrate some force on the balance wheel of your clock mechaninism. << The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > > Sue... > [...]http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then give us a demonstration. A demonstration of what? > Half the masses in the universe are moving toward you. > Half the masses in the universe are moving away from you. > > Their gravito-inertial field is attenuated this way:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html That's the inverse-square law, ok. > Using Einstein's relativity:http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html That's a table of contents, ok. > Kindly demonstrate some force on the balance wheel of your clock > mechaninism. Why do you think a force is necessary, implied or otherwise? What purpose would this demonstration have for you? It has absolutely no bearing on the straightness or crookedness of worldlines. > << The key to understanding special relativity is > Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > all laws of physics take the same form in all > inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html And this is all absolutely correct. And simultaneity, for example, is not in any way a fundamental differentiator in an experiment, nor is it a law of motion. > Sue... > > > > Sue... > > [...]http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > A demonstration of what? I'll bet even "spaceman" knows how to divide a homogenous universe by two. << Half the masses in the universe are moving toward you. Half the masses in the universe are moving away from you. Their gravito-inertial field is attenuated this way: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html Using Einstein's relativity: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Kindly demonstrate some force on the balance wheel of your clock mechaninism. > > Half the masses in the universe are moving toward you. > > Half the masses in the universe are moving away from you. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why do you think a force is necessary, implied or otherwise? The spring exerts a force to accelerate the invariant mass of the balance wheel. We can't increase the mass to slow the clock because Fitzpatrick and Einstein both indicate that is just an imaginary increase. << we can account for the ever decreasing acceleration of a particle subject to a constant force [see Eq. (1542)] by supposing that the inertial mass of the particle increases with its velocity according to the rule (1546). >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html > What purpose would this demonstration have for you? > It has absolutely no bearing on the straightness or crookedness of > worldlines. The worldlines have no bearing on anything unless you can demonstrate they represent some sound math and physics. > > << The key to understanding special relativity is > > Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > not in any way a fundamental differentiator in an experiment, nor is > it a law of motion. Einstein's conjectures about simultaneity requires some knowlege of the speed of thought. The pseudo-particles he mused about have never been mearured. See: http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html Sue... > > Sue... > > > > > Sue... > > [...]http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > not in any way a fundamental differentiator in an experiment, nor is > it a law of motion. Dear Sir I suspect that you are right here, but, I still have a but Lets just for now suspect that you are right here In other words, lets just suspect another speed, twice the speed of light, so it will be 2 x c = d So d is twice c. We cant detect this speed yet Will that traveling twin still eld according to c or d? Should be d, right?` But here is the paradox, we cant detect d yet Thank you for your support. > [...]http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Sue... And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when a whole bale of chaff is thrown in the air. PD > > [...]http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Then give us a demonstration. [...] > > Sue... > > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when a whole > bale of chaff is thrown in the air. I expect is has the same solution with both Newton's laws and GR and you don't like either one them because your magic twin vanishes. Maybe "spaceman" will do the sums for you. Half the masses in the universe are moving toward you. Half the masses in the universe are moving away from you. Their gravito-inertial field is attenuated this way: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html Using Einstein's relativity: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Kindly demonstrate some force on the balance wheel of your clock mechaninism. << The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > PD > > > > > But, by your own words, you *did* understand SR. I'm not > > > > > suggesting anyone should believe nonsense. *You* wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > more or less straight line through spacetime (look up "worldline" to > see what this means), and the other twin does not. But my Sir No twin do any spacetime, spacetime is a model, a drawing we do here on earth in lack of something better to do. SpaceTime is not reality !!! > You've been raised > to believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (It takes work to *prove* that a straight line produces the smallest > d, but ultimately it stems from those + signs.) Yes, that is how they work, you put them succinctly > But the analog of distance in spacetime is "interval", and in fine, distance_spacetime = interval what about time, what is time in spacetime? time_spacetime = ??? > spacetime, the straightest line between two points is the *longest* > distance, this is very stupid, if is true the straightest line throwgh a mountain is a tunnel, which is the short > and that's because there's a minus sign in there: > (interval) = square root of [t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2]yu t², what do you mean, what is t ??? define immediately yo can't quantizide t, because you can count pulses as fast as you want !!! > (Again, the proof takes work, but hopefully the germ idea you see.) > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If we flex and adopt the good idea in the previous paragraph, > dispensing with our historical habit, then c becomes just 1, which is I dont care what you say c is, from an allegedly speed m/s you made it a dimensions less > not really a peculiar number at all. And in fact, it *still* doesn't > have to do with light, really. It has to do with the maximum slope of yes, as I just said > worldlines for all real objects. And it just so happens that light is > one of the few things (because it's massless) that can actually sit on > that maximum slope. now tell me shortly, where you are wrong in all you just said in this post here !!! > > Believing is indeed a form of learning under the Orwellian educational > > system. <shrug> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What is unresolvable about the twin paradox? Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity. <shrug> > The result makes perfect sense. Only to a believer. <shrug> We have been through that before. > Why do you insist that it doesn't make sense, when it does? Only to a believer under the Orwellian educational system where: ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING On Jul 7, 6:25 am, PD wrote: > On Jul 7, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Believing is indeed a form of learning under the Orwellian educational > > system. <shrug> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What is unresolvable about the twin paradox? Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity. <shrug> > The result makes perfect sense. Only to a believer. <shrug> And you believe in aether. > And you believe in aether. Electromagnetism can only be explained with the existence of the Aether. So, just what part of electromagnetism are you able not to understand, Androcles the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the Aether- denier? How do explain Sagnac, psychotic nitwit and plagiarist? BTW, you forgot to plagiarise Roberts' shrug. and the fuckhead Wublee can't answer. > How do explain Sagnac, psychotic nitwit and plagiarist? What is there to explain a lack of effect and thus anomaly, you nitwit? > BTW, you forgot to plagiarise Roberts' shrug. Shrugging is no plagiarism. It is in the same category as smiling, you nincompoop. > and the fuckhead Wublee can't answer. Because there is no answer to lack of anomaly, you idiot. | > How do explain Sagnac, psychotic nitwit and plagiarist? | | What is there to explain a lack of effect and thus anomaly, you | nitwit? Ring laser gyroscopes have an effect, psychotic fuckwit, or like you they would be no use to anyone. It's called the Sagnac effect. Explain it with your aether, sh.t-for-brains, as I have with Newtonian Dynamics. <SHRUG> > > > Believing is indeed a form of learning under the Orwellian educational > > > system. <shrug> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and > the principle of relativity. <shrug> I'm sorry, what's unresolvable about that again? Are you insisting (again) that the principle of relativity says that simultaneity must be the same in all inertial reference frames? Really? How about the state of being stationary? Does the principle of relativity say that if an object is stationary in one frame, then it is stationary in all inertial frames? How about the state of nonzero kinetic energy? Does the principle of relativity say that if an object has nonzero kinetic energy in one frame, then it has nonzero kinetic energy in all inertial frames? > > The result makes perfect sense. > > Only to a believer. <shrug> Not really. A believer believes something is true even if it doesn't make sense. But this does make sense. I see it's causing a problem for you, but for some people dividing by a fraction doesn't make sense. > We have been through that before. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING > > Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and > > the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > I'm sorry, what's unresolvable about that again? Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity. <shrug> > Are you insisting (again) that the principle of relativity says that > simultaneity must be the same in all inertial reference frames? No, Relative simultaneity --- the VERY COMBINATION of time dilation and the principle of relativity. <shrug> > Really? Yes. <shrug> > How about the state of being stationary? Relative to what? > Does the principle of > relativity say that if an object is stationary in one frame, then it > is stationary in all inertial frames? Relativity says no special frames. <shrug> > How about the state of nonzero kinetic energy? Relative to what? > Does the principle of > relativity say that if an object has nonzero kinetic energy in one > frame, then it has nonzero kinetic energy in all inertial frames? No. <shrug> > > Only to a believer. <shrug> > > Not really. A believer believes something is true even if it doesn't > make sense. As you believe in the nonsense of the Lorentz transform, you are merely a believer where ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING <shrug> > > > Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and > > > the principle of relativity. <shrug> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and > the principle of relativity. <shrug> Well repeated. There is nothing to be resolved there. The principle of relativity is completely consistent with time dilation. > > Are you insisting (again) that the principle of relativity says that > > simultaneity must be the same in all inertial reference frames? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Relative to what? The origin of the frame. > > Does the principle of > > relativity say that if an object is stationary in one frame, then it > > is stationary in all inertial frames? > > Relativity says no special frames. <shrug> Exactly. So is the answer "yes" or "no"? > > How about the state of nonzero kinetic energy? > > Relative to what? Relative to zero. > > Does the principle of > > relativity say that if an object has nonzero kinetic energy in one > > frame, then it has nonzero kinetic energy in all inertial frames? > > No. <shrug> Exactly. Then why would you insist that if two events are simultaneous in one inertial frame then they need to be simultaneous in all inertial frames? > > > Only to a believer. <shrug> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As you believe in the nonsense of the Lorentz transform, you are > merely a believer where And what is nonsensical about the Lorentz transform? > ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM > ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <shrug> > > Relative simultaneity --- the very combination of time dilation and > > the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > Well repeated. There is nothing to be resolved there. The principle of > relativity is completely consistent with time dilation. Since you still have not understood the very simple concept of paradox whenever the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity occur, I have to repeat myself that the twin’s paradox occurs through this phenomenon. > > Relative to what? > > The origin of the frame. What origin? Doesn’t SR forbid any special frame of reference? By calling the very special frame of reference the origin does not bode very well for your argument. <shrug> > > > Does the principle of > > > relativity say that if an object is stationary in one frame, then it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly. So is the answer "yes" or "no"? The basic answer is no, but I still don’t know how possible that you can be so confused. <shrug> > > > How about the state of nonzero kinetic energy? > > > Relative to what? > > Relative to zero. What zero? There is no absolute frame of reference in SR! <shrug> > > > Does the principle of > > > relativity say that if an object has nonzero kinetic energy in one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in one inertial frame then they need to be simultaneous in all > inertial frames? This does not have anything to do with the energy issue! <shrug> > > As you believe in the nonsense of the Lorentz transform, you are > > merely a believer where > > And what is nonsensical about the Lorentz transform? Here we go again. The answer is the twin’s paradox. The Orwellian education has the traits of the following. ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING [...] > Here we go again. The answer is the twin’s paradox. Why? The Lorentz transform assumes constant velocity. [...] > I dont understand my brain anymore > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I see no any beauty anywhere, I need some answers here << Since Einstein's time, we have learned to distrust this sort of aesthetic criterion. Our experience in elementary-particle physics has taught us that any term in the field equations of physics that is allowed by fundamental principles is likely to be there in the equations. It is like the ant world in T. H. White's The Once and Future King: Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. Indeed, as far as we have been able to do the calculations, quantum fluctuations by themselves would produce an infinite effective cosmological constant, so that to cancel the infinity there would have to be an infinite "bare" cosmological constant of the opposite sign in the field equations themselves. Occam's razor is a fine tool, but it should be applied to principles, not equations. >> --Steven Weinberg http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml Sue... > Why I cant understand relativity periodically? > > I dont understand my brain anymore > > Some days I understand relativity perfectly, while next day it makes [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Sue... > > Why I cant understand relativity periodically? In the last paragraph Wienberg left out that Einstein encouraged the US to develop the nuclear bomb. In my current sight (which is not quite hindsight) that and Zionism are errors. It is really interesting that the symmetric tensor is mentioned in that article and that is the topic that I mean to point to. Relativity theory claims the usage of a tensor while creating its own metric that clearly destroys isotropy. This is a conflict that most people seem not to appreciate; otherwise it would have reached the mainstream. When we consider a simplified Minkowski metric dd = xx + yy + zz - tt we see a bastardized form of pythagorean theorem making a play on time which is a misunderstood arithmetic form. Regardless of this criticism it is clear that the Minkowski metric is an instance of a structured spacetime. The form is not isotropic. Tensors rely upon the ability to arbitrarily choose a reference frame and so there is an inherent conflict. Rather than taking this as a grounds to dismiss the theory why not extend it? If we had a structured spacetime that still allowed arbitrary reference frames then we could yield plenty of dynamics. We have a deeper puzzle that exists which can take the simplified form Why spacetime? If we suppose that an answer to this question exists then we will have formed a spacetime basis. Having formed a spacetime basis it then follows that physics will fit that form naturally. Especially since Maxwell's equations are expressed on isotropic space and the speed of light is inherently related to the constants epsilon naught and mu naught we can anticipate that the proper form will include these details. The structured form will support electromagnetics as inherent behavior. Did you know that the cross product is not a general dimensional form? It is only defined for three dimensions. If we cast doubt on this operator and attempt to recover it then we will have a new electromagnetic interpretation. Furthermore Maxwell's equations were developed on the assumption that a naked charge exists, but modern theory (and experiment) expose that naked charge does not exist; the electron carries a magnetic moment called spin inherently. This is further support for the new interpretation. The speed of light c, and its related factors epsilon naught and mu naught are accepted as properties of spacetime. Time is a unidirectional phenomenon. We have no ability to position ourselves in time either ahead or behind the present moment. Thus to attribute a full dimension to time is not an accurate depiction. Instead to satisfy the unidirectional nature of time we should consider a one-signed number rather than a two-signed real number. Under superposition such one-signed numbers can only accumulate. This then poses the generalization of sign: http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned The facts of generalized sign expose that the unidirectional one- signed numbers are a new definition of a zero dimensional form which can still provide arithmetic values. Dimension itself takes on new meaning while still supporting the usual arithmetic. If you made it to the bottom of the first page then the progressive form 0D 1D 2D | 3D 4D is apparent and this I propose is the proper spacetime structure that will support electromagnetics. Notice that we see time, a real line, and a complex plane as the well behaved portion of the basis. The form happens to be informationally consistent with the symmetric tensor and exposes a geometry that fits electromagnetic behavior. Relativity theory has played with sign just a bit but has remained within the realm of real valued mathematics. The next step will take sign a bit more seriously as I have outlined. Thus the hope for clean theory should not be dismissed. Existence is a highly complex form. So we should seek a basis capable of providing such dynamics. Seeking universal rules requires treating spacetime as a nonarbitrary form. This means that we should not pull three dimensions out of a hat as has been done in the past. What motivates 3D space motivates physics. This is nearly metaphysical. It is natural. Should it really be surprising that a pure arithmetic form provides the basis? The foreign nature of this proposition paints the modern states of physics. - Tim On Jul 7, 8:42 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I dont understand my brain anymore > > > Some days I understand relativity perfectly, while next day it makes [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > US to develop the nuclear bomb. In my current sight (which is not > quite hindsight) that and Zionism are errors. LOL > It is really interesting that the symmetric tensor is mentioned in > that article and that is the topic that I mean to point to. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > arbitrarily choose a reference frame and so there is an inherent > conflict. It seems not as bad as the conflict SR produced. The hook into energy density get the theory out of a circular reference even if it may not be just the right reference at a scale of 10^32. I am not sure if pseudo-tensors are invented math or violated math but they don't seem too obscene. > Rather than taking this as a grounds to dismiss the theory why not > extend it? If we had a structured spacetime that still allowed > arbitrary reference frames then we could yield plenty of dynamics. We > have a deeper puzzle that exists which can take the simplified form (Inertial) Reference frames of the real world are not arbitrary. Planetes, stars galaxies and gasses establish them. Without those, you are in search of Newton's ether. > Why spacetime? Energy density ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor > If we suppose that an answer to this question exists then we will have > formed a spacetime basis. Having formed a spacetime basis it then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > behavior. Did you know that the cross product is not a general > dimensional form? It is only defined for three dimensions. I have mentioned that previously with regard to Van der Waals and London forces. > If we cast > doubt on this operator and attempt to recover it then we will have a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > c, and its related factors epsilon naught and mu naught are accepted > as properties of spacetime. Perhaps for a spacetime in the subatomic realm. > Time is a unidirectional phenomenon. We have no ability to position > ourselves in time either ahead or behind the present moment. Thus to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Under superposition such one-signed numbers can only accumulate. This > then poses the generalization of sign: http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned > The facts of generalized sign expose that the unidirectional one- > signed numbers are a new definition of a zero dimensional form which [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > surprising that a pure arithmetic form provides the basis? The foreign > nature of this proposition paints the modern states of physics. Have you given this any thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_descriptions_of_the_electromagnetic_fi eld#Tensor_field_approach Off the top of my head I can't see why it shouldn't hold below the subatomic. That is where you can describe a space-time without regard to tiny gravito-inertial interactions. (it seems to work for particle physicists anyway) Your chances are one to six. :o) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/20119 Sue... > - Tim > On Jul 7, 8:42 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" > <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > > - Tim I'm not so sure that we just want to recover Maxwell's equations in a new form. They were built on a premise of raw charge but what we observe is that the raw charge carries a magnetic moment inherently. Maxwell's equations are clean. Still, I think it is safe to state that a unified approach denies standard electromagnetism. The raw stationary charge (though it is tough to make an electron stand still) supposedly carries a magnetic moment and this is not supported by standard electromagnetism. Physics circa Y2K simply tacks on the spin as Dirac constructed it. This supposedly binary quality is not actually so clean as the textbooks make it out to be. I've pointed you to the troubles in the past Sue with the spin polarized beam purity maxed out near 80%, when according to Stern and Gerlach all that is needed is an inhomogeneous magnetic field to strip out half the beam. Spin is not a binary quality. It is continuous. Most importantly it is possible to see that electromagnetic behavior is a property of spacetime thanks to the electron spin; hence a generic form of 'particle' can exist whose dynamics are partially due to spacetime behavior. Informationally we should shift some complexity into spacetime and remove it from matter. The polysign progression does this for us while generating natural spacetime support. I feel drawn to achieving a stability criteria whereby an electron will merely be a stable form. The electromagnetic tensor can be reduced informationally into a tatrix (triangular matrix) form a11 a21 a22 a31 a32 a33 and even the zeros can be accomodated if we up the form one level to a41 a42 a43 a44 where these are a progressive polysign dimensional construction including time. Now we see a 10 component scalar structure of six dimensions, split at three dimensions, those 10 scalars reducing if we render to six geometrical dimensions in a subbrane configuration. It's all extremely closely linked yet I do not have the motive quite right. I suspect that there is a new math like calculus but slightly more primitive that will work out on the polysign numbers. If that is the case then it will be more like listening to that new math rather than forcing a rabbit to wear a hat. There are plenty of signals here that line up nicely, but if the old reliance on the real number is wrong then twenty layers out from that core should we really hope to have a clean morphing? This may be a problem for the pure mathematician rather than those steeped in modern physics. Physicists typically treat mathematics as something to be used loosely. At a theoretical level this is a weakness. Modern theory is a collage of math constructions. The physicist comfortably takes freedoms that the anal mathematician balks at. I balk at the real number which both seem posessed by. The continuous/discrete paradigm has a new interpretation in number theory now. It ties directly to geometry and satisfies time behavior naturally. I suppose we are overlooking some fundamental mathematics still. Modern practice is to work out on the branches of the tree yet there is something in the core that is still invisible to humans. I think it lays near calculus and especially the interdimensional nature of calculus. For instance when we integrate a 1D curve we get a 2D area. A simplistic n+1 relation is also what the progressive polysign basis relies upon. This seems childishly simple to spend any energy on but that is the sort of thing we should see at the base. - Tim On Jul 15, 1:27 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > I'm not so sure that we just want to recover Maxwell's equations in a > new form. They don't model London forces AFAIK so no harm in reaching for the stars. > They were built on a premise of raw charge but what we > observe is that the raw charge carries a magnetic moment inherently. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as Dirac constructed it. This supposedly binary quality is not > actually so clean as the textbooks make it out to be. Welll.... That is because physics students have to study for banal mathematics examinations leaving no time to get their own house in order. :o) > I've pointed you > to the troubles in the past Sue with the spin polarized beam purity [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > behavior. Informationally we should shift some complexity into > spacetime and remove it from matter. e+ e- annhilation does tend to suggest something like that must be hidden somewhere in the debrisless debris. > The polysign progression does > this for us while generating natural spacetime support. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > seems childishly simple to spend any energy on but that is the sort of > thing we should see at the base. It is starting to sound a bit "stringy" to me. Something only a mathematician can apprciate. So far you seem to be making some good progress finding some things in your space-time that line up with our banal and archaic physics. :o) If you are "slumming" on usenet it must mean you devoured all the papers I didn't get around to reading. So here are a few more. <<The new quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Shrödinger, and Dirac (1926-1928) showed that the orbital angular momentum of the silver atom in the ground state is actually zero. Its magnetic moment is associated with the intrinsic spin angular momentum of the single valence electron the projection of which has values of ± h/2, consistent with the fact that the silver beam is split in two. If Stern had chosen an atom with L = 1, S = 0, then the beam would have split into three, and the gap between the m=+1 and m=-1 beams would have been filled in, and no split would have been visible! Vol. II, chapters 34 and 35, and Vol. III, chapters 5 and 6 of the Feynman Lectures gives a lucid explanation of the quantum theory of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Platt (1992) has given a complete analysis of the experiment using modern quantum mechanical techniques. Here we present an outline of the essential ideas. >> http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp_18.pdf Confirmation of 99.9% proton spin-flipping at high energy by a small rf-dipole http://www-spin.physics.lsa.umich.edu/html_meeting/cosy.protFlipApr04.29jun04.pdf Chiral Quark Description of the Proton Spin and Magnetic Moment http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/download.php?d=1&pid=485 BTW I think most people read too much into the term "spin" in the microatomic realm. In magnetics identifiable charges are moving but with subatomic particles, something is behaving magnetically as-tho something is spinning. I may be repeating myself, or repeating you or perhaps someone just as honorable and intellegent as you or I. :o) Regards, Sue... > - Tim > On Jul 15, 1:27 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > If you are "slumming" on usenet it must mean you > devoured all the papers I didn't get around to reading. > So here are a few more. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > an outline of the essential ideas. >>http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp_18.pdf This link says: "Stern predicted that the effect would be be just barely observable. They had difficulty in raising support in the midst of the post war financial turmoil in Germany. The apparatus, which required extremely precise alignment and a high vacuum, kept breaking down. Finally, after a year of struggle, they obtained an exposure of sufficient length to give promise of an observable silver deposit. At first, when they examined the glass plate they saw nothing. Then, gradually, the deposit became visible, showing a beam separation of 0.2 millimeters!" After this they go into cigar smoke with sulfur content which I had not heard about before, but another interesting detail is that the aperture did not work when it was circular. They were getting dim results and what results they had showed a more continuous image. They had to go to a rectangular aperture which widened the image. I read this account from a small book covering some experimental physics though I can't recall the title and author. I think it is also interesting that so much attention is put to the velocity of the stream of atoms without any regard for their rotational content. This relates to thermodynamics which I have some fundamental criticism of. The rate of propagation of heat in a solid is far slower than the propagation of sound and so the interpretation of heat in materials being vibrational is a misnomer. It must be that the heat energy is in rotational form and that the resultant torque interaction is very slight. Without entering higher dimensional solutions this seems to be the only option. Therefore to overlook such rotational features will be misleading. Do modern Stern-Gerlach type experiments use a circular final aperture? I did spend some time hunting this back in time but found very little. The original image that I remember shows not two distinct bars on the glass. It shows them weeping toward each other a bit. Skinny down the aperture and they'll bleed together. This would be support for a continuous phenomenon, not a discrete spin. It seems that this experiment does use slits as described under the Oven section. How conveniently the aperture has been subsumed into the oven. Anytime apertures are used special attention ought to be given to them since their effects are far from the intuitive notion of a clean shadow path filter. I do like this link and especially the stereo image, but where is a skeptical review of this experiment? > Confirmation of 99.9% proton spin-flipping at high energy by a small > rf-dipolehttp://www-spin.physics.lsa.umich.edu/html_meeting/cosy.protFlipApr04... As I study this article I wind up at http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e00/PAPERS/MOP4B19.pdf which for COSY proton beams exposes the same 80% limit as I have seen for the electron beams from GaAs plane emissions, and again with the more conservative 75% figure noted. This is a magic number! Much more straightforward than other magic numbers. How your link's team can claim such a high spin flip efficiency off of such a poor beam purity is beyond me. Their lack of discussion of beam purity again is frustrating. Nobody wants to talk about this problem. We humans are subject to the Peter Pan principle. > Chiral Quark Description of the Proton Spin and Magnetic Momenthttp://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/download.php?d=1&pid=485 It almost looks as if this one is generating an explanation of poor beam purity from the quark sea but I haven't really read it very closely. Anyhow no discussion of the lack of ability to control beam purity seems to enter the language directly. Sorry I'm being a bit stuck on beam purity but I do think it is a strong argument for reinterpretation of discrete spin. > BTW I think most people read too much into the term "spin" > in the microatomic realm. In magnetics identifiable charges [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > perhaps someone just as honorable and intellegent as > you or I. :o) That's a nice complement to both of us. Thanks for the new links. We perhaps should not even be using the term 'spin' but just magnetic moment instead. The term came as a means of decoupling orbital magnetic contribution within a raw charge interpretation. The modern construction glues the magnetic moment on top of the naked charge. I tend to just focus on the electron but you're making me look at the proton too. Thanks. Almost all of the literature is operating on the assumption that the spin model is correct, yet the contortions that people accept are beyond reason. Beam polarization purity is a simple attack on this theory which takes us back to the Stern-Gerlach level. This discrete attribute can be recovered via proper/improper transformation on a continuum. This is essentially allowing the electron to turn itself inside out which is a dimensional and geometrical feat. This suggests a spin-neutral intermediate on a continuum. The probability of finding such a charged particle is low especially if you accept that it is n-1 dimensional; flat as a pancake. Such dimensional phenomena take us over to superconductors and FQHE, which you've introduced me to in the past. So it's probably a good idea to keep an eye out for those sorts of detail. Cooper pairs as inverse spin matching could be a pretty clean interpretation. The sweetest way around all of this would be to derive a stable charge. - Tim On Jul 18, 10:32 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp_18.pdf > This link says: > "Stern predicted that the effect would be be just barely observable. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Skinny down the aperture and they'll bleed together. This would be > support for a continuous phenomenon, not a discrete spin. I don't see why they wouldn't be round. Manhole covers are round everywhere but Ohio where King Soloman's value for pi is the law of the land. :o) > It seems that this experiment does use slits as described under the > Oven section. How conveniently the aperture has been subsumed into the > oven. Anytime apertures are used special attention ought to be given > to them since their effects are far from the intuitive notion of a > clean shadow path filter. I do like this link and especially the > stereo image, but where is a skeptical review of this experiment? It is lurking in some professor's to-do box waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting grad student. :o) > > Confirmation of 99.9% proton spin-flipping at high energy by a small > > rf-dipolehttp://www-spin.physics.lsa.umich.edu/html_meeting/cosy.protFlipApr04... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > frustrating. Nobody wants to talk about this problem. We humans are > subject to the Peter Pan principle. I think Siberian Snakes and composite particles may have something to do with the high purity. http://www.bnl.gov/discover/Winter_06/spin.asp > > Chiral Quark Description of the Proton Spin and Magnetic Momenthttp://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/download.php?d=1&pid=485 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stuck on beam purity but I do think it is a strong argument for > reinterpretation of discrete spin. Well... something holds the particles together. We tend to think of spinning things flying apart. But if inertia is a macroatomic effect, spinning things might crowd together in the subatomic realm. > > BTW I think most people read too much into the term "spin" > > in the microatomic realm. In magnetics identifiable charges [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > as inverse spin matching could be a pretty clean interpretation. The > sweetest way around all of this would be to derive a stable charge. You just made me realise that an inertial field which vanishes in the subatomic, makes a lot of spinning things in atoms look better. Such an inertial field has a toy model you probably recall. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6 ...But it is a bit too Higgsless for the mainstream. Sue... > - Tim > [...]http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp_18.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > I think Siberian Snakes and composite particles may have something > to do with the high purity.http://www.bnl.gov/discover/Winter_06/spin.asp I can accept that what they are doing helps them to steer the beam. But a claim of flipping 99% of a beam that is only 75% polarized is troublesome. Anyway, what it even means to have a 75% pure beam is an open problem to me. On the one hand we are supposed to believe that the binary property of spin being either up or down would mean that 25% of the beam is spin down while 75% of the beam is spin up right? Or is it that we are really looking at an axial magnetic moment and playing with the orientation of that axial in space continuously? The inhomogeneous magnetic field affecting the electrons differently spatially makes this continuum concept pretty sound. Regardless of the interpretation the 75% limit points to a misunderstanding. The opening that I would like to consider is based on consideration of structured spacetime which relativity theory takes only part way. Its reliance upon the tensor denies it going much further. Anyway electromagnetism can be taken as a feature of spacetime. The propagation of light has limiting factors in existing theory which are attributed to spacetime. Thus by providing more spacetime structure we may see electromagnetism as an emergent phenomenon. This then should allow electron spin to be relegated as a generic feature. In some ways this is turning physics into geometry. Geometry in the polysign numbers already comes with spacetime support including unidirectional zero dimensional time. This has been the motivating principle that has taken me back to this reinterpretation of electron spin. Maxwell's theory is fine but it requires isotropic space. What if space is not isotropic? Under the modern paradigm we accept that spacetime is unified. Already the isotropic claim is lost due to unidirectional time. It's readily apparent that the Minkowski metric has structured spacetime somewhat. Relative reference frames can work on top of a structured basis. If we had to declare the Minkowski structure one simplistic way to do it would be 1D 3D the first part being time and the second part being space. This is not a natural construction. Why this breakdown? Instead by breaking spacetime down as 0D 1D 2D we see that unidirectional time is satisfied, 3D space is satisfied, and the ability to yield electromagnetic behavior is structurally built in. We are still free to use relative reference frames on such a space. Spin is a natural frame reference. The structure is progressive and less arbitrary than the Minkowski version. I'm fairly certain that the word isotropic in not even valid. 'Same in all directions' has been the simplest terminology I think. If you've got something that is truly the same in all directions then you've constructed a blank space. Space is not blank. Space is structured. Even to accept the Minkowski metric alone is enough to prove that space is structured. Have a look around you and you will not see the same thing in all directions, except perhaps as a prisoner of conscience in solitary confinement at Guantanamo. Darkness is all that you would have. Even for the ultimately local electron so long as you are willing to grant it a magnetic moment then it is granted a specific reference frame directly tied into its behavior. > > > Chiral Quark Description of the Proton Spin and Magnetic Moment > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > You just made me realise that an inertial field which vanishes in > the subatomic, makes a lot of spinning things in atoms look better. Glad I sparked something for you. > Such an inertial field has a toy model you probably recall.http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6 > ...But it is a bit too Higgsless for the mainstream. Not too Higgsless for me. What is locally in phase cannot be in phase globally. Could this be consistent with dark matter trouble? - Tim On Jul 19, 1:08 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [...]http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp_18.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > this continuum concept pretty sound. Regardless of the interpretation > the 75% limit points to a misunderstanding. If you think in terms of a macro-atomic object like a toy gyroscope is does indeed appear suspicious. That sort of machine has a tight coupling to ~the rest of the univese~ or ~the gravio inertial field~ what ever you choose to call it. The micro-atomic object has a greater coupling to its neighbors. Each spin you flip, makes the neighboring spins easier to flip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle > The opening that I would like to consider is based on consideration of > structured spacetime which relativity theory takes only part way. Its [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > spacetime down as > 0D 1D 2D Two opbjects and their associated fields cannot occupy the same space. That is a false statement in our world. It only requires one more dimension to express the world as we know it. Two opbjects and their associated fields cannot occupy the same space at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law (Yes...The speed of light is not mentioned on that page but you know where it applies.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_integral#Some_practical_applications Then some allowance for the finte speed of light. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > we see that unidirectional time is satisfied, 3D space is satisfied, > and the ability to yield electromagnetic behavior is structurally > built in. Hmmm.... I am not sure that triple integral is "built in" > We are still free to use relative reference frames on such a > space. Spin is a natural frame reference. The structure is progressive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > got something that is truly the same in all directions then you've > constructed a blank space. Space is not blank. Space is structured. For sure! Dielectric material is always found where light radiates away from an an EM emitter. 377 ohms. Dielectric material surrounds the space craft which does not move the instant its rockets fire, but some time later. F = ma > Even to accept the Minkowski metric alone is enough to prove that > space is structured. Have a look around you and you will not see the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are willing to grant it a magnetic moment then it is granted a > specific reference frame directly tied into its behavior. When I push a car, it pushes back, *instantly*. Air molecules are the only thing close enough to act instantly so they have to be the culprit. ;-) They are certaintly up to the task. <<Assuming that the net charge resides at the points of the spheres most distant from each other because of the charge repulsion, we can set the force of repulsion equal to the weight of a sphere. The radius of a one cm3 sphere is 0.62 cm, so we will treat the force as that between two point charges 2.48 cm apart (i.e., twice the sphere diameter apart). Using Coulomb's law, this requires a charge of 7.8 x 10-8 Coulombs. Compared to the total mobile charge of 13,600 Coulombs, this amounts to removing just one valence electron out of every 5.7 trillion (5.7 x 1012) from each copper sphere. The final result is that the removal of just one out of roughly six trillion of the free electrons from each copper sphere would cause enough electric repulsion on the top sphere to lift it, overcoming the g ravitational pull of the entire Earth! >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Copyrighy C.R. Nave, Georgia State University If you want a CD version: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html [...] > > Well... something holds the particles together. > > We tend to think of spinning things flying > > apart. But if inertia is a macroatomic > > effect, spinning things might crowd > > together in the subatomic realm. [...] > > You just made me realise that an inertial field which vanishes in > > the subatomic, makes a lot of spinning things in atoms look better. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not too Higgsless for me. What is locally in phase cannot be in phase > globally. Could this be consistent with dark matter trouble? If macroatomic spinning objects fly outward and microatomic spinning objects fly inward, which axis of that 4 spine sea urchin do they go on? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/spinc.html#c4 Sue... > - Tim On Jul 19, 1:08 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > Glad I sparked something for you. > > > Such an inertial field has a toy model you probably recall. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6 > > ...But it is a bit too Higgsless for the mainstream. > > Not too Higgsless for me. What is locally in phase cannot be in phase > globally. Could this be consistent with dark matter trouble? I think so but then most folks in jail think they shouldn't be there. ;-) Nobody seems very interested in looking. Puthoff got waaay too forward on his skis proposing a propulsion effect. Folks that like Big Bangs and Lorentz invariance and dislike Van der Waals models wouldn't have much use for it. ;-) Sue... > - Tim On Jul 19, 1:08 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors to Solve Tate’s Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly <<Tate et al failed to measure the Cooper-pair mass in Niobium as predicted by quantum theory. This has been discussed in the literature without any apparent solution. Based on the work from DeWitt to include gravitomagnetism in the canonical momentum of Cooper-pairs, the authors published a number of papers discussing a possibly involved gravitomagnetic field in rotating superconductors to solve Tate’s measured anomaly. Although one possibility to match Tate’s measurement, a number of reasons were developed by the authors over the last years to show that the gravitomagnetic field in a rotating quantum material must be different from its classical value and that Tate’s result is actually the first experimental sign for it. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086 Search for Frame-Dragging-Like Signals Close to Spinning Superconductors <<The results can also be used to compare with different theoretical models that have been proposed predicting large frame-dragging fields around rotating superconductors. Apart from the parity violation and the non-superconductor critical temperatures observed in the experiments, especially the Gravity-Probe B data rules out all present models by up to 4 orders of magnitude. The experimental data also rules out our initial [J.Tate] Cooper-pair mass anomaly hypothesis (Tajmar and de Matos, 2003, Tajmar and de Matos, 2005) by 5 orders of magnitude. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3806 > Glad I sparked something for you. > > > Such an inertial field has a toy model you probably recall. "Origin of Gravity" [Induction mechanism] http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6 > > ...But it is a bit too Higgsless for the mainstream. > > Not too Higgsless for me. What is locally in phase cannot be in phase > globally. Could this be consistent with dark matter trouble? <<Induced gravity (or Emergent gravity) is an idea in quantum gravity that space-time background emerges as a mean field approximation of underlying microscopic degrees of freedom, similar to the fluid mechanics approximation of BEC. The concept was originally proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967. Sakharov observed that many condensed matter systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are identical to general relativity quantitatively. [...] The particular models proposed by Sakharov and others have been proven impossible by the Weinberg-Witten theorem. However, models with emergent gravity are possible as long as other things, such as spacetime dimensions, emerge together with gravity. Developments in AdS/CFT correspondence after 1997 suggest that the microphysical degrees of freedom in induced gravity might be radically different. The bulk space-time arises as an emergent phenomenon of the quantum degrees of freedom that live in the boundary of the space-time. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity Sue... > - Tim > On Jul 19, 1:08 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > > - Tim I've tried to skim most of your links but it's a bit much. Some is familiar. Where is the difference between fusion and the BEC state? If it is possible to superpose material in this way shouldn't it stabilize as larger atoms? This is a nice entry into stability in that it shows that the criteria are different but getting close. I saw a wave interpretation of the BECondensate where the waves literally overlap and are indistinguishable which I like, but then throwing the fusion concept at that should they have gotten fusion? Do waves superpose? I have not bought into standard atomic theory going back to Rutherford's foil experiment and the interpretation of a concentrated nucleus. A lot does line up yet there are breaks of incoherence and many experimental values are only loosely coupled to theory. The worst of these is the rate of heat flow. If in a solid a molecule wiggles as heat why should we expect such a long delay and filtering versus a wiggle of say a tiny 1kHz sound signal? This distinction leaves all of thermodynamics open I think. I deep coming back to the solid. We are fortunate to have this state at all. Without this state we have no measuring stick to work with. We cannot derive three dimensional space without that measuring stick, at least not simply. Going to the fluid state we see that this area of understanding has its limits. We are still learning the tricks of rotation and thermodynamics in the fluid. The vortex. So natural. For a solid the vortex simply becomes rotational moment. We could call this fully coherent but adjacent might be even closer. It is difficult to break out of the traditional teaching. We start with blocks or balls of mass and put them on strings and arrive at perfect solutions. The measuring stick is stable; constant; solid. In terms of uncertainty any local measure in the fluid cannot fully predict any other measure. Even the transducer at that local location will have to confess that were it a smaller instrument it would have a higher frequency response and so dynamics are overlooked for what is assumed to be a 3D geometry informational process. Perfection on this route cannot be about little blocks of mass with perfect solutions. To seek pure math yielding such dynamics could take one over to fractals, but then the road back to physics is obscured. A natural spacetime basis would be a decent bridge between them. Nicely enough the polysign progression does come into complex mathematics in a generalized form while supporting spacetime as a natural feature. In a broad sense a fractal interpretation whose outcome is based on a mere few constants is what we seek, and really for the number of physical constants that exist one could have quite a tricky fractal. This then poses not a multiverse but a redundant universe. We might anticipate other humanoid cultures with similar nuclear issues as our own under such a model. Even within a closed result (many sets have finite bounds like our current model of the universe) the detailed results are varietal even while the constants remain the same universally. On this front any choice of function is unconvincing. There needs to be an operator. This operator will likely mimic electromagnetism on the polysign progression. It has an interdimensional feature that will couple the progression such that propagation in time and space are coupled. I guess you could call this a prediction which in hindsight will be more of a discovery than an invention. It is a primitive. Strange enough determinism on such a structure suggests locating ones self on a self similar structure. Hence the farce of seeking specific local values. I cannot anticipate a solution which yields the self tapping screw in its exact orientation laying by gravity on the top of my computer now. Its getting a bit metaphysical but if the arithmetic in use in physics cannot provide such dynamics then its math cannot be fundamental to nature. The part which is most convincing to me is arithmetic spacetime support. From this basis at least the hope of clean theory can be based, where theory implies mimicing observation in a nonarbitrary manner. Geeze I'm babbling on awfully badly here. Coming up to things like gravitomagnetism is like trying to climb up a loose pile. By trying to treat the whole problem as open it leaves those details as fragments. The quantity of fragmented theory in physics could be taken as a measure. The more fragmented the poorer the quality. The acceptance of specialization in fields of research and their development as standalone topics does help grind at the pile since the edges do have to line up or break off into smaller fragments. But are some of the fragments science fiction? Peter Pan fragments can exist. I might even be promoting one. This is the human state of belief which science attempts to overcome. Prediction is a strong indicator and ordinarily you are supposed to predict a feature of observation. Instead I predict an operator that will align theory more generally. As a human construction if its accuracy is good then it can be labeled a discovery. Normally under modern context we are seeing the fundamentals as filled in but if we are missing one fundamental piece then what does that say about the entire pile? Such a primitive proposition is consistent with the fragmentary view exposed here. - Tim On Jul 22, 10:21 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 1:08 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > assumed to be a 3D geometry informational process. Perfection on this > route cannot be about little blocks of mass with perfect solutions. But it is the *imperfect* that gives us clues. <<The reason that the boiling points increase as you go down the group is that the number of electrons increases, and so also does the radius of the atom. The more electrons you have, and the more distance over which they can move, the bigger the possible temporary dipoles and therefore the bigger the dispersion forces. >> http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html > To seek pure math yielding such dynamics could take one over to > fractals, but then the road back to physics is obscured. A natural [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > clean theory can be based, where theory implies mimicing observation > in a nonarbitrary manner. One must remember, nature never uses maths. > Geeze I'm babbling on awfully badly here. Coming up to things like > gravitomagnetism is like trying to climb up a loose pile. By trying to > treat the whole problem as open it leaves those details as fragments. It doesn't have to be an open problem if it can be simulated. http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm > The quantity of fragmented theory in physics could be taken as a > measure. The more fragmented the poorer the quality. The acceptance of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > then what does that say about the entire pile? Such a primitive > proposition is consistent with the fragmentary view exposed here. You have too much faith in maths, and too little in nature. But repeating myself and repeating one more thoughtful than me. << Our experience in elementary-particle physics has taught us that any term in the field equations of physics that is allowed by fundamental principles is likely to be there in the equations. It is like the ant world in T. H. White's The Once and Future King: Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. Indeed, as far as we have been able to do the calculations, quantum fluctuations by themselves would produce an infinite effective cosmological constant, so that to cancel the infinity there would have to be an infinite "bare" cosmological constant of the opposite sign in the field equations themselves. Occam's razor is a fine tool, but it should be applied to principles, not equations. >> http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml Sue... > - Tim > > assumed to be a 3D geometry informational process. Perfection on this > > route cannot be about little blocks of mass with perfect solutions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > temporary dipoles and therefore the bigger the > dispersion forces. > http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html This link is a fine instance of fragmentation. By taking this simple minded look at atoms we should be able to extend it to sound conduction and heat conduction right? Now, if you were to put down these simple models on a piece of paper at an atomic level what would their differences be? One atom 'bumps' into another... is that sound or is that heat? Then why is sound conduction so much faster than heat conduction? Coherence is a nice vector to split them out on and clearly they are two very different animals yet under the standard interpretation heat is vibrating atoms. This does nothing to bolster any higher physics such as phonon analysis. They merely keep fragmenting the problem into plasmons, palaritons, polarons, excitons, and magnons (Kittel 5th Ed. Introduction To Solid State Physics). The body of accumulation is daunting. Should a skeptical student reject any of it? I think that my argument on heat interpretation versus sound is simple enough that it deserves an answer. If we reject the sound interpretation of heat (vibrating atoms) then we are left an ethereal fundamental that can be used to challenge our modern notion of spacetime. I think it is either that or taking torque interaction more seriously. If thermal interpretation is an open problem then all that is built on top of thermal interpretation is likewise open to new understanding. - Tim On Jul 23, 8:02 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > assumed to be a 3D geometry informational process. Perfection on this > > > route cannot be about little blocks of mass with perfect solutions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > temporary dipoles and therefore the bigger the > > dispersion forces. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html > This link is a fine instance of fragmentation. By taking this simple > minded look at atoms we should be able to extend it to sound [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > excitons, and magnons (Kittel 5th Ed. Introduction To Solid State > Physics). “If I could remember the names of all these particles, I’d be a botanist” --Enrico Fermi > The body of accumulation is daunting. Should a skeptical student > reject any of it? Of course! The whole purpose of Phy102 is to unlearn Phy101. :o) > I think that my argument on heat interpretation > versus sound is simple enough that it deserves an answer. If we reject [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that is built on top of thermal interpretation is likewise open to new > understanding. IMHO, understanding the difference between sound and light is more fundamental and it puts some restrictions on plausible answers to some of the questions you have presented. I favor Joule's bucket of water. If it's temperature increases then something must have hit it which was hot, heavy or hasty. <<The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/0sn/ch02/figs/paddlewheelsimple.png http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/0sn/ch02/ch02.html "Installing the ATLAS calorimeter" http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/910381#02 Sue... > - Tim > On Jul 23, 8:02 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > plausible answers to some of the questions you have > presented. This is good logic but you have not extended it to the problem. If heat were like light then the propagation of heat would be lickety split instead of sluggish compared to sound. How can a slower form fit in as 'vibrating atoms'? In either a gas or a solid the problem is the same. How can heat travel so slowly? If we do accept that the difference is on the order of the discrepancy between light and sound then how can we qualify that discrepancy? We accept that light does not require mass to conduct itself but that sound does. If you want to make atoms little tanks for infrared waves of light that slosh out occasionally then you will have made a new interpretation of heat. Let's not confuse thermal mass type energy with radiant energy... or should we? Whatever choice you make here the old interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms has to be distinguished from sound as vibrating atoms. The mystery of heat is still alive! - Tim > I favor Joule's bucket of water. If it's temperature increases > then something must have hit it which was hot, heavy or hasty. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > - Tim On Jul 24, 12:35 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 8:02 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > temporary dipoles and therefore the bigger the > > > > dispersion forces. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html > > > This link is a fine instance of fragmentation. By taking this simple > > > minded look at atoms we should be able to extend it to sound [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > in as 'vibrating atoms'? In either a gas or a solid the problem is the > same. How can heat travel so slowly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductive_heat_transfer > If we do accept that the > difference is on the order of the discrepancy between |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message