Electro-London Inertia
sue jahn
Sue: paraphrase style in brackets [].
<< Woodward:
Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument
goes as follows. In general relativity theory
matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve,
Sue:
[induced dipoles there tell induced dipoles here their shape]
and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move.
Sue:
[induced dipoles here attract induced dipoles there]
(Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.)
Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics
we must specify the distribution and motion of matter
throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide
"initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional
spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for
gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by
themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the
finite propagation velocity built into them, we might
specify some distribution of matter that subsequently
leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't
happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some
additional equations called "constraint" equations.
The neat thing about these constraint equations is that,
unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous.
(Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic"
differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia
is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously.
The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical
influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the
instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields
in the Coulomb gauge. >>
Appologies to:
James F. Woodward
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/nord.htm
The mystery in such a substitution is what mechanism
similar to...
============
RA AR
+- -+
-+ +-
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/160Aintermolec.html
http://web.umr.edu/~gbert/INTERACT/intermolecular.HTM
http://polymer.bu.edu/Wasser/robert/work/node9.html
============
...what mechanism can increase the attractive force
before an object and decrease the attractive force
behind an object, in proportion to the applied force
of acceleration?
Sue...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein:
[Sue: ...what mechanism can increase the attractive force before an
object and decrease the attractive force behind an object, in
proportion to the applied force of acceleration?]
Gravity. The multi-orbital behavior 'moons'.
Acceleration is not limited to speed.
You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind,
but Einteinians do.
Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system?
I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot
fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective
observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based
observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the
whole set)?
Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend
upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize
clocks except for rest-based relativity?
When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it.
While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)
In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.
Sue...
Yes.. that is the vein I am thinking in.
>
> Acceleration is not limited to speed.
Indeed, I might have used a broader expression saying
we impart energy to the system. But it is energy with
a vector component.
>
> You wish to use the term "force" for this? I don't particularly mind,
> but Einteinians do.
In the case of Lorentz, Van Der Waal or London, the term force
seems correct. That is the reason I used it. Yes... it seems
unweildly. It may be a poor choice. But dicipline seems to demand
retaining the root term from Coulomb force until some other
derivation is shown.
>
> Can you define acceleration in a many-bodied gravitational system?
I can not... but intuitivly, I assumed that a computer could.
http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/sutmann-teaching/UNAM_2005
>
> I think that there is an objective physic in existence that we cannot
> fathom yet. We tend to make a physic out of our subjective
> observations (relative). Do you really think that relative-based
> observations (a partial set) can describe the overall objectivity (the
> whole set)?
No. In fact, my intent was to encompass the whole set. I should have
mentioned the sister thread 'Electro London Gravity'.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b5e1d090adee0ace?hl=en&
>
> Can't anybody realise that velocities and addition of velocities depend
> upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize
> clocks except for rest-based relativity?
I have not found this a viable statement. Even Einstein conditions
his version of it... ~and *apparent* incompatabiliy with Maxwell's
equations and the principle of relativity. Tho it is not a simple
relation, the *appearance* seems well accounted for we compare
the various points of view (gauges) we might apply to the issue.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
>
> When did this universe last have rest? Ans: When we invented it.
LOL
>
> While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
> cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
> time.
The neighborhood of a few interacting molecules seems fairly
local. One need not venture far to be out of the near-field
where Van der Waals and London forces apply.
> It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
> describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)
>
> In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.
Oh ???
<< Abstract The unexpected dynamic shift of the center of
mass for a rotating hemisphere is shown to produce a general
relativistic dipole field in the macroscopic scale. This
prompts us the question of what might be its cosmological implications.
... >>
http://www.physica.org/xml/article.asp?article=v059a00339.xml
That is a interesing take on the issue but philosophy along the
lines of:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Forces/intermol/IMG00002.GIF
from:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Forces/intermol/Forces02.htm
...is more what I had in mind. :o)
Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
a lift.
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
...
> Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
> At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
> or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
> would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
> yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
> a lift.
> Sue...
Hi Sue, Ken here...
Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
(Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
way you are seeking.
For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and
they have some configurational energy,
p = a*b/s, in ergs for example.
Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the
energy density,
T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4.
Now, pause and ponder this,
T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4,
where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge
"a" and some other charges.
Sue, the above departs from the classical solution
to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's
pretty junky now.
If you like that's Tuckers "noncontinuum solution to
the Electrovacuum EFE's", I mean that.
Once T00 is defined that way, we can enjoy G00 by
G_uv = T_uv , G00 = T00.
OO scary equation, I'm shakin in my boots.
Twist & shout,
G00 = NABLA^2 g00 = T00.
Solve for g00 and find,
g00 = 1 + (a/s)(b/s),
provided the charges don't masturbate, so terms
like self energization "a^2/s" are excluded
including a^2/s^4.
Sue want's a solution using discrete charges
I figure we should give girls what they need.
At this point we have a closed logic system
consistent with the EFE's and discrete, where
discrete means charge "a" is in a different
location than "b", and the metric is defined
by the relation. See, the continuum died.
With Sues ableness to put things behind us,
we can proceed to observe the asymmetry of
the relative geodesics of charges "a" and
"b".
I'll stop here, take questions, and if you
want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give
the EM field.
Regards Sue
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> ...
> > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
> > At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
> > or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
> > would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
> > yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
> > a lift.
> > Sue...
>
> Hi Sue, Ken here...
>
> Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
> (Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
> your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
> That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
> way you are seeking.
You are so far forward on your skis that you missed
a high crime right under your nose.
So... where is the force term ?
When I push on a object, I expect it to push back?
Hint: We can't apply force to an object.
We must apply force *between* a pair of objects.
Now... !!! You can use your field equations to
show why the exponents in the these expression are
really the same.
Field intensity: 1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2
That assumes the two objects are far enough apart
to ignore Lorentz, Van der Waal and London force.
You are mis-spellin the word TWO
TOO means in addition to; also; furtha-more.
<<including a^2/s^4.>>
Hmmm.. That looks to be some dialect of the English
language that would be encouraging to see fall out
of all those Goo-Goo expressions.
Goo-Goo to you TOO ;-)
Soo...
Sue...
Actually, after a little prodding and harassment from KST :o),
I think we can.
If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or
Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of
induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and
a conformance with both the inverse square law and
the the acceleration law.
1/r^2
a = 1/2 mv^2
When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire
or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy
to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force
or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple.
All the other induced dipoles in the universe have
a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as
they approach more populus regions of space.
Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at
distance but that doesn't need to apply where the
coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed
as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to
the field.
So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion
seems it could be considered integral to inertial
behavior.
Sue...
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> ...
> > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
> > At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
> > or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
> > would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
> > yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
> > a lift.
> > Sue...
>
> Hi Sue, Ken here...
>
> Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
> (Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
> your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
> That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
> way you are seeking.
The wiki URL you posted in another thread, inspired a
bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this
outfit looks on induced dipoles:
<<Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include:
a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics),
a very high-frequency electromagnetic wave,
a beam of incoherent electromagnetic radiation.
In particular, a plane wave of incoherent electromagnetic
radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, all moving
in the same direction but having randomly chosen phases and
frequencies. (Even though the Einstein field equation is
nonlinear, a linear superposition of comoving plane waves is
possible.) Here, each electromagnetic plane wave has a well
defined frequency and phase, but the superposition does not.
Individual electromagnetic plane waves are modeled by null
electrovacuum solutions, while an incoherent mixture can be
modeled by a null dust. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_dust_solution
I don't read the shorthand well enough to know it that is
what you are modeling below. I am not at all comfortable
with the freewheeling interchange of E and B *outside the
particle* but that may be valid way to derive forces from
incoherent radiation. A null dust seems to be the best
description of induced dipoles.
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Sue... wrote:
> > ...
> > > Many thanks for the obeservation about the term 'force'.
> > > At some point, a poor choice between force, energy, acceleration
> > > or potential can hide the trees in the forest. The correct choice
> > > would show the clearest relation between mass, gravity and inertia
> > > yet be something a bit more formal than a professor riding in
> > > a lift.
> > > Sue...
> >
> > Hi Sue, Ken here...
> >
> > Your cuddling to the Electo-vacuum solution to the EFE's
> > (Einstein Field Equations), however in agreement with
> > your inclination, the solution departs from a continuum.
> > That is to say, the EFE's do require relations in the
> > way you are seeking.
>
> The wiki URL you posted in another thread, inspired a
> bit of window shopping and I sort of like the way this
> outfit looks on induced dipoles:
I should have provided that ref to you, so you
don't think I'm a TOTAL lunatic, but just partly
loony:-). That wiki on GR is pretty good, the
authors are trying hard, I follow the discussion.
> <<Phenomena which can be modeled by null dust solutions include:
> a beam of massless neutrinos (treated according to classical physics),
> a very high-frequency electromagnetic wave,
> a beam of incoherent electromagnetic radiation.
> In particular, a plane wave of incoherent electromagnetic
> radiation is a linear superposition of plane waves, all moving
> in the same direction but having randomly chosen phases and
> frequencies. (Even though the Einstein field equation is
> nonlinear, a linear superposition of comoving plane waves is
> possible.) Here, each electromagnetic plane wave has a well
> defined frequency and phase, but the superposition does not.
> Individual electromagnetic plane waves are modeled by null
> electrovacuum solutions, while an incoherent mixture can be
> modeled by a null dust. >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_dust_solution
>
> I don't read the shorthand well enough to know it that is
> what you are modeling below. I am not at all comfortable
> with the freewheeling interchange of E and B *outside the
> particle* but that may be valid way to derive forces from
> incoherent radiation. A null dust seems to be the best
> description of induced dipoles.
> Sue...
I think no one is satisfied yet. It seems GR is
being treated as a extension of Newtons continuum
theory, and of course that makes it's fusion with
QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations,
and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR
as naturally a relation theory, such as relating
two simple charges "a" and "b" below.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
Noncontinum solution?
Didn't we know that was necessary from Maxwell's
scalar and vector components that have to be
patched-up with a retarded time before we are
even 1/4 wavelength from the structure?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
<< The special theory of relativity assumes the existence of a unique
class of global coordinate systems - called inertial coordinates - with
respect to which the speed of light in vacuum is everywhere equal to
the constant c. It was natural, then, to express physical laws in terms
of this preferred class of coordinate systems, characterized by the
global invariance of the speed of light. In addition, the special
theory also strongly implied the fundamental equivalence of mass and
energy, according to which light (and every other form of energy) must
be regarded as possessing inertia. However, it soon became clear that
the global invariance of light speed together with the idea that energy
has inertia (as expressed in the famous relation E2 = m2 + |p|2) were
incompatible with one of the most firmly established empirical results
of physics, namely, the exact proportionality of inertial and
gravitational mass, which Einstein elevated to the status of a
Principle. This incompatibility led Einstein, as early as 1907, to the
belief that the global invariance of light speed, in the sense of the
special theory, could not be maintained. Indeed, he concluded that we
cannot assume, as do both Newtonian theory and special relativity, the
existence of any global inertial systems of coordinates (although we
can carry over the existence of a local system of inertial coordinates
in a vanishingly small region of spacetime around any event). >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
>
> Once T00 is defined that way, we can enjoy G00 by
>
> G_uv = T_uv , G00 = T00.
>
> OO scary equation, I'm shakin in my boots.
>
> Twist & shout,
>
> G00 = NABLA^2 g00 = T00.
>
> Solve for g00 and find,
>
> g00 = 1 + (a/s)(b/s),
>
> provided the charges don't masturbate, so terms
> like self energization "a^2/s" are excluded
> including a^2/s^4.
>
> Sue want's a solution using discrete charges
> I figure we should give girls what they need.
>
> At this point we have a closed logic system
> consistent with the EFE's and discrete, where
> discrete means charge "a" is in a different
> location than "b", and the metric is defined
> by the relation. See, the continuum died.
...and well it should if it insists that couplings
that are not light must propagate like light
anyway.
>
> With Sues ableness to put things behind us,
> we can proceed to observe the asymmetry of
> the relative geodesics of charges "a" and
> "b".
>
> I'll stop here, take questions, and if you
> want, show how nonsymetrical metrics give
> the EM field.
I am assuming that would be a different way to
express the advanced and retarded solutions
for expressing the 1/r^3 magnetic and 1/r^2
Coulomb components.
The 'obsession' with time and speed of light
that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time
continum, seems more a help than a hinderace.
Contrast with:
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/moldy-manual/node11.html
http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ercolessi/md/md/node52.html
Eleventeen ways from Sunday we can show that
constant c electromagnetic field equations are
compatable with a relativistic paradigm, but
proof or conformance with the coupling modes
for light, doesn't necessarly tell us anything
about other coupling modes necessary to Coulomb,
VDW, London and gravity.
The space-time continum paradigm is tripping over
its own shoelaces before it even produces a model
for the simple 1/r^3 force, magnetism... and that
effect is part of its own foundation. :-/
Sue...
Sue...
Sue... mis-wrote:
The 'obsession' with time and speed of light
that is inhereted thru the use of a space-time
continum, seems more a
[hinderace] than a [help].
<<-->>
I can mess up like that consistantly by trying to
write balanced equations.
<:-)
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
If you think I'm sexist, you should meet me in person,
I'm worse, :-).
> I think we can.
> If we gauge the force used to separate a pair of planets or
> Cavendish weights, it is not hard to see the mechanism of
> induced dipoles providing the reaction force we measure and
> a conformance with both the inverse square law and
> the the acceleration law.
>
> 1/r^2
> a = 1/2 mv^2
>
> When the two masses are far apart and we use a thin wire
> or rod to conduct the force between, is is not so easy
> to see how induced dipoles enter into the reaction force
> or 'inertia'. The solution might be very simple.
>
> All the other induced dipoles in the universe have
> a 'grip' on the masses that will change only as
> they approach more populus regions of space.
>
> Some may object over concerns of instaneous action at
> distance but that doesn't need to apply where the
> coupling to existing Coulomb lines are locally modifed
> as the structure of the induced dipole adapts to
> the field.
I think that's the ticket. That adaptation results
in a gravitational attraction as a GR modification
to electrostratic force.
> So... your holistic, or all is one, nutshell notion
> seems it could be considered integral to inertial
> behavior.
Yes, well written, that's what I think. Mach's
Principle is more clearly understood using
Maxwell's eqs when GR is accounted for.
Unfortunately, if we are correct, it would
predict a null result for the LIGO experiment,
and sofar that is the result. IOW's the g-waves
emit in EM spectrum.
> Sue...
If you want I'll expand on the above.
...
> > While it is true that relativity theory describes a timely form of
> > cause and effect, it is just locally applicable with locally applied
> > time. It is very good... if you like a local physics that cannot
> > describe or correlate to quantums or strings. (I hate strings)
> >
> > In a nutshell, we are in one, and nobody seems to realise it.
A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
Agreeably
Ken
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)
I'll trust that you can help me with the below.
I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
figure the grander scale where R varies.
The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
pure m(1),m(test).
Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
of loose ends.
The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.
Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
consideration.
Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.
But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.
Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
me (temporarily, until I need more).
Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
theory dependent (?).
Ken S. Tucker
xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
[...]
> > A preface in an abstract stating the UNIVERSE=1
> > is a very reasonble invariant, I've used it.
> > Agreeably
> > Ken
>
> xxein: UNIVERSE=1 what? Stasis or dymamic? (Just an aside.)
Even in organic terms, you or me, an ant or a bee
has 1 universe.
> I'll trust that you can help me with the below.
>
> I am missing one (only one? I wish!) piece of math. Given a simple G,
> M (in meters) and R, I can figure the 'ideal' timerates, escape
> velocities etc., but I don't know how to figure out a specific velocity
> under a specific circumstance --- that being: Even though the
> integration and derivitive calc for acceleration, velocity and time is
> very straightforward wrt a particular R, I don't know the calculus to
> figure the grander scale where R varies.
>
> The prime example is - how fast is a rock moving if dropped from 2
> Earth radii to just as it approaches 1 Earth radii? Rem: this is the
> ideal with no atmosphere and no otherwise motion between them (just a
> pure m(1),m(test).
>
> Having a general form of this with G, M, R and c will help me tie a lot
> of loose ends.
That type of question is important in *Celestrial Mechanics*,
Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R)
is what you want to understand.
In GR defining "M" and "R" is a bit more complicated.
> The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
> to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
> should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
> information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.
>
> Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
> important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
> this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
> it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
> consideration.
>
> Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.
> But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.
Sounds good, that same type of enquiry led to GR,
to start.
> Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
> me (temporarily, until I need more).
> Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
> theory dependent (?).
Well spacecraft use Newtons Laws successfully.
Ken
Sue...
Ahhh... you want to play hard-ball by putting the term 'c'
in the relation. We can get there from a global assumption
about conservation like e = mc^2. Look at KST's evolution
above where:
<<
For example, take a pair of charges "a" and "b" and
they have some configurational energy,
p = a*b/s, in ergs for example.
Slap the behind (dividing by volume) and get the
energy density,
T00= p/s^3 == a*b/s^4.
Now, pause and ponder this,
T00= (a/s^2)*(b/s^2) = E(a)*E(b) = a*b/s^4,
where E(a) & E(b) are Electric fields of charge
"a" and some other charges.
"the above departs from the classical solution
to EFE's that uses a continum, but who cares, that's
pretty junky now. "
>>
KST has good instincts about finding the shortest path
to a solution but that grand assumption about the
conservation of energy in the universe is troubling?
But you'd rather see the evolution begin with universe
having an impedance of 377 ohms, as in this
relation?
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
Here is such an evolution that is incomplete.
It considers the forces which diminish by
1/r, 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 anisotropcally.
'Electromagnetic energy and momentum '
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html
You want rigorous field equations that will include forces
diminishing by up to 1/r^12 so can see where the Coulomb
force is a trillon, trillon, trillon times greater than
gravity and inertia?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
Ha! ROFL... That could end up looking like:
'The Ewald Sum'
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~keithr/moldy-manual/node11.html
or you might need a big computer
http://www.kfa-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/sutmann-teaching/UNAM_2005
>
> The last time I asked (a few years ago), Ande452 only gave me a hint as
> to powers (like I was supposed to know how to use them in a calc - or I
> should take calc(XVI)). He acted like it was a mundane piece of
> information with no scientific value except for a specific calculation.
>
> Well, I sorely miss this relation and feel in my bones that it is very
> important relation that may be a semi-Rosetta stone for understanding
> this universe. I also feel that it can spell trouble for SR-GR in that
> it might expose an unequality of great proportion if given a proper
> consideration.
It seems it would spell trouble for GR SR because they are not
well behaved when things move at other than c.
>
> Otoh, it may help unite the different theories.
Yes, at least on a macro scale it seem to move in the right direction.
>
> But, without any regard to any event, I want it as a tool to play with.
Is this a fair name for the tool?
"Long Range Interactions in Many-Particle Simulation" (pdf)
P. Gibbon and G. Sutmann.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/datapool/page/1959/wsqs_2002_long_range.pdf
>
> Can you express it so, or cite? This would be like the best of sex to
> me (temporarily, until I need more).
>
> Thx in advance for whatever you can provide. I just hope it is not
> theory dependent (?).
The forces between dipoles is a rather simple and well
established 'theory'. ;-)
Sue...
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: No. If dropped from 2R instead of infinity. Like if you drop
something from the Empire State Bldg. instead of ten meters the splat
velocity will be greater. Sqrt(2GM/R) is a drop from infinity. What
is the splat velocity from 2R to R? Remember that R changes throughout
the fall. The sqrt(2GM/R)is probably a math shorthand for some
intergral that indicates "from R(=inf) to R(=surface of a mass), splat
v=sqrt(2GM/R)". Repeat with "from R(=2R) to R(=X=any point above or
including the surface of a mass), splat v=???".
Do you understand what I am asking now?
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: See my follow-up to KST. It should have a very macro answer in
the proper context.
Sue...
I'll assume you were just being complete including c.
Let's try to ignore it.
Force increases with radius below surface.
Force diminishes by the square of the radius above
surface.
The curve is ugly and the equation not much prettier.
I think the problem might be the interpretation of
the word infinity. It is not the same as setting
the focal length of a lens to infinity.
If an object occupies 2 degress of your field of
view, you can always double your distance and
half the apparent angular size. This is how we
'expect' to approach infinity.
Not so with Coulomb force and gravity You have to
put on your Machian hat and consider the whole
universe is always acting on the test mass. The
earth acts to distribute the force of the universe
assymetrically over the test mass to produce the
acceleration vector.
We can't approach infinity. We approach 377 ohms
impedance because the universe is homogenous.
As far as we know, we can't move to a position
where the charges that comprise the universe
will not try to drag photons out of us.
That isn't the compact equation you seek, but
perhaps the different POV about the mathematical
use of the term 'infinity' will help to get there.
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Yes I do, books on this subject are available
at a library by people who have written this
stuff up clearly and you can verify are
qualified to answer you.
Anyway, IIRC, the differences in g-potential
convert to kinetic energy, (Newtonian approx),
E = m*v^2/2 = m*PHI2 - m*PHI1
But that is modified in GR.
You may want to post that question in a new
thread because the're quite a number of people
who are very good at teaching.
Ken
sue jahn
wrote:
The matter that fills the universe requires that
we consider a continuum.
> and of course that makes it's fusion with
> QT difficult because QT is a theory about relations,
The forces between charges requires that we consider
the relation between the entities.
> and not about points on a continuum. OTOH I see GR
> as naturally a relation theory, such as relating
> two simple charges "a" and "b" below.
So yes. You can't have biscuits with jam using
all bread or all jam. :o)
Sue...
--
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Sue, have a quick glance at
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
that Fredifizzx helped me with.
It's only 2 pages, but it connects a few dots.
Also G. Hansen's post to "what is about gravity that
slows light" today is really good.
Regards
Ken
Sue...
OK...
I got lost in the tensor notaton but gained enoungh
footing to see that equation 4 looks ~similar~ to
3d + 1t induced dipole equations.
I was not able to, but perhaps you can,
repeat the evolution and show that
electromagnetism repels.
That would require swapping b with -b?
I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. :o(
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Good, I wrote/derived equation (4) so it applied
to 3D space and still hold. When extended by
covariant equations into 4D it becomes quite
sophisticated but revealing details.
((I had to put in Eqs(1)...(3)
to add some pedigree
so the Grist's will
respect me)).
The whole idea on *boiling down* to (4) and then
showing how intimate that is with GR above, then
using EM, and seeing how Newtons gravity emerges
is to show a reasonable idea of how we can see
in a few steps an intro to Unified Field Theory.
> I was not able to, but perhaps you can,
> repeat the evolution and show that
> electromagnetism repels.
> That would require swapping b with -b?
> I couldn't find a good excuse to do that. :o(
> Sue...
Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
(I suspect you already know some of the answer and
so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).
AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.
Have fun and put that another way,
DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
as well as gravitational forces.
I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
basic algebra if you want.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
solution but after some tho't I realised it will
depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.
>
> AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
>
> Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.
That could make sense:
http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html
>
> Have fun and put that another way,
>
> DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
>
> That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
>
> S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
>
> accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
> as well as gravitational forces.
>
> I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
> basic algebra if you want.
Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. :o)
I need to digest both those papers together and be
convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
never actually deriving one from the other.
Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Thanks for lookin Sue...
[big snip}
> > Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
> > (I suspect you already know some of the answer and
> > so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
> > respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).
>
> Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
> solution but after some tho't I realised it will
> depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
> will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
> affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
> attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.
Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
charges in,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
but certainly a more detailed analysis provides
radiation when "a" and "b" change the're radar
distance "S", as temperature would create.
> > AE in GR suggested and subsequently proved,
> >
> > Energy =(c^4/G)*Length.
>
> That could make sense:
> http://planck.com/threepenny/html/chap03.html
Well, I'm a cynic, so I the hit the math and
simed on computers and found the deflection of
light corresponded to the removal a length
equivalent to the GR prediction Mass=1.47 km,
in the case of the Sun.
I'm ok with classical GR, as far as it goes.
> > Have fun and put that another way,
> >
> > DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
> >
> > That in conjuction with Eq.(4) per ref,
> >
> > S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4)
> >
> > accounts for the source of electrostatic forces,
> > as well as gravitational forces.
> >
> > I think I can demo that off Eq.(4) using some
> > basic algebra if you want.
>
> Factors like 10^42 don't fall out of basic algebra. :o)
> I need to digest both those papers together and be
> convinced we aren't just basing every thing on a
> Cavendish balance and electrometer measurement and
> never actually deriving one from the other.
> Either you have reduced Gibbon's work by about
> 36 pages... or we overlooked something real important.
> http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
Sue, sit down and play with a pair of magnets,
there's real forces there that separate those
magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,
DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
(makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)
Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,
S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).
DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.
EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.
>From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
That's why GR works for me.
I believe what I write because I see an over-all
organization in the universe, where attraction
is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt
FrediFizzx
news:1130308193.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of spacetime
also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy to
see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets. No
magic required! ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Sue...
OK, I am playing. How does this look?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral
> there's real forces there that separate those
> magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
> why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,
Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! :o)
====================================|
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Introduction
Coulomb's law
The electric scalar potential
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Introduction
Faraday's law
Electric scalar potential?
====================================|
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
>
> DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
>
> (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)
That IS a big number... Hmmm
OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.
>
> Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,
>
> S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).
>
> DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.
>
> EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.
>
> >From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
> we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
> and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
> That's why GR works for me.
>
> I believe what I write because I see an over-all
> organization in the universe, where attraction
> is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
> Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.
No... Sue says *love* is what makes people crazy
enough to see 4d clocks respond to 3d motion.
More dicipline we need!
http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheringham/Media/internet%20dominatrix.jpg
Sue...
>
> Ken S. Tucker
> kxsxt
FrediFizzx
news:1130311889.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Depends on how big the m is. ;-)
| That IS a big number... Hmmm
| OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.
Ken might be just a tad high on that. ;-) Christoph Schiller's max
force = c^4/4G. LOL!
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118
Try to equate that to the vacuum expectation value of 246 GeV. Maybe
works OK in 8D.
Sue...
FrediFizzx wrote:
snip
>
> And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of spacetime
> also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy to
> see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets. No
> magic required! ;-)
*Homogenous* space-time you mean?
If you don't see 1/r^3... then you don't see magnets.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
Half the volume of your 4d space-time is null and
it is too easy to put things there which don't exist.
<< Thus, charges *appear* to emit only retarded
waves, which agrees with our everyday experience.
Clearly, in this model we have side-stepped the
problem of a time asymmetric Green's function by
adopting time asymmetric boundary conditions to
the universe; i.e., the distant charges in the
universe absorb retarded waves and reflect advanced
waves. This is possible because the absorption takes
place at the end of the universe (i.e., at the
``big crunch,'' or whatever) and the reflection
takes place at the beginning of the universe (i.e.,
at the ``big bang''). It is quite plausible that
the state of the universe (and, hence, its interaction
with electromagnetic waves) is completely different
at these two times. It should be pointed out that
the Feynman-Wheeler model runs into trouble when one
tries to combine electromagnetism with quantum mechanics.
These difficulties have yet to be resolved, so at
present the status of this model is that it is
``an interesting idea'' but it is still not fully
accepted into the canon of physics. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
'Space-Time'
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
But... If we put all the matter and all the space into
a blender, and push the 'puree' button, your SI MKS
compatable paradigm looks pretty close to me. :o)
In cgs, we don't have imagine spin faries making
permeability out where no structures exist to
support it and we don't have to explain how to
make four telescopes share one photon.
<<ESO Press Release 16/02: Four Eyes Are Better.
VLT Interferometer Passes Another Technical Hurdle.
(26/September/2002).>>
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-16-02.html
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
More complicated than needed at first.
> > there's real forces there that separate those
> > magnets in space and time. I see how GR explains
> > why that happens. The big amplifier is found in,
>
> Whatchu mean *time* you krazy kanook! :o)
I'm not kanook, my step parents are half North
American!
> ====================================|
> Time-independent Maxwell equations
> Introduction
> Coulomb's law
> The electric scalar potential
>
> Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
> Introduction
> Faraday's law
> Electric scalar potential?
> ====================================|
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
>
> >
> > DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
> >
> > (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)
>
> That IS a big number... Hmmm
> OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.
Yup, E=mc^2 , E = L*c^4/G,
> > Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,
> >
> > S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).
> >
> > DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.
> >
> > EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.
> >
> > >From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
> > we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
> > and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
> > That's why GR works for me.
> >
> > I believe what I write because I see an over-all
> > organization in the universe, where attraction
> > is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
> > Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.
>
> No... Sue says *love* is what makes people crazy
> enough to see 4d clocks respond to 3d motion.
> More dicipline we need!
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheringham/Media/internet%20dominatrix.jpg
Ok, I get to wear the spikey, unless otherwise!!!
Sue...
Indeed! Page 4 *does* equate c^4 to ~10^42
Beyond that... Ugggh,
There is a bit too much based on what has not
been disproven about angels dancing on pins.
A narrative always seems to take that course
whenever the the name Schwarzschild appears
absent the definition of a clock and accelerometer.
Sigh... :-(
>
> Try to equate that to the vacuum expectation value of 246 GeV. Maybe
> works OK in 8D.
8d ? Yikes! Are you a kanook too?
I should probably find out what that means to
a Canadian. It might be worse than I intend.
<<
can~uck n. a.
picky, marked by extreme care in treatment of details; "a
meticulous craftsman"; "almost worryingly meticulous in his business
formalities"
punctilious
marked by precise accordance with details; "was worryingly
meticulous about trivial details"; "punctilious in his attention to
rules of etiquette" >>
http://www.redgreen.com/files/layout/washing.jpg
:o)
Sue...
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hi Sue Fred and all...
>
> Sue... wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > Hi Sue and all,
> > >
> > > Sue... wrote:
> > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for lookin Sue...
> > > [big snip}
> > >
> > > > > Wow, Sue, a penetrating question, never expected it!
> > > > > (I suspect you already know some of the answer and
> > > > > so I think your question is a bit rhetorical, but I'll
> > > > > respond as if it isn't,, ok :-).
> > > >
> > > > Well... it seemed a fair test for a mulit body
> > > > solution but after some tho't I realised it will
> > > > depend on the temperature of the masses. Heat
> > > > will do the swapping of b with -b and that will
> > > > affect both the EM pressure and gravitational
> > > > attraction... hopefully in equal ammounts.
> > >
> > > Yes I think that's true. I simplify to naked static
> > > charges in,
> > >
> > > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
Yes... it will complicate itself without our help.
Lightspeed is what it is, because a charge couple
has a definite mass and tension.
We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless
something moves. So... Can the motion which we
analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the
chaRge couple?
I think you have already answered that. I just
need to go back and read again.
GAWD! I hope the other half of them is not to
the south. That will throw of all of our
induced dipole musings.
>
> > ====================================|
> > Time-independent Maxwell equations
> > Introduction
> > Coulomb's law
> > The electric scalar potential
> >
> > Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
> > Introduction
> > Faraday's law
> > Electric scalar potential?
> > ====================================|
> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
> >
> > >
> > > DE = (c^4/G)*DL .
> > >
> > > (makes SR's mc^2 look like a fart!)
> >
> > That IS a big number... Hmmm
> > OK, ~10^42 might fall out of that.
>
> Yup, E=mc^2 , E = L*c^4/G,
I might letcha do that. I have to read
some more about Planck area.
>
> > > Let's pull GR's Unitivity solution,
> > >
> > > S^2 = X^2 + ab Eq(4).
> > >
> > > DS =/= DX , DL = DS - DX.
> > >
> > > EM FORCE = DE/DX = (c^4/G)* DL/DX.
> > >
> > > >From the analysis of a "charge couple" in GR,
> > > we can see from Eq.(4) how GR predicts EM force
> > > and, in turn, gravitation as a residual EM effect.
> > > That's why GR works for me.
> > >
> > > I believe what I write because I see an over-all
> > > organization in the universe, where attraction
> > > is a wee bit greater than repulsion, I'll bet
> > > Sue would call that Love = residual attraction.
> >
> > No... Sue says *love* is what makes people crazy
> > enough to see 4d clocks respond to 3d motion.
> > More dicipline we need!
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~efotheringham/Media/internet%20dominatrix.jpg
>
> Ok, I get to wear the spikey, unless otherwise!!!
It is a good thing you're fond of simple equations.
Big equations are difficult to manage with a
brain between your legs. ;-)
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
What intrigues me is how magnetism goes through
lead (Pb). If the photon is the EM force carrier,
does it stand to reason sufficiently low frequency
EM will go through Pb?
Fred recall we were discussing spinors. I use
something similiar to convey magnetism in space-
time, the antisymmetric of the g_uv, like q*Bz = g12,
and g21=-g12.
I think the Eq(4) above depends upon the QVC, and
the definition of a vacuum you and Dr Inopin are
working on.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
Incidentally, I helped design a control panel for
an oil tank farm, and we had to use Hall Effect
switches because they don't spark.
> We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless
> something moves. So... Can the motion which we
> analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the
> chaRge couple?
> I think you have already answered that. I just
> need to go back and read again.
Ok, maybe I should put an addendum to the article
to explain things better, so your questions are
very helpful.
LOL, we're taught to simplify the answers so even
I can understand them!
Ken
Sue...
Hi KenST and Freddi,
What I was trying to say in the parallel post about
Cavendish and Coulomb:
<< The electrical scaling relationships of the general
theory are based on the linear relationships of the
Maxwell and Newton equations. There are additional
physical constants in the overall system. The only way
to avoid the problem of linear dependencies is to utilize
both linear and nonlinear terms in determining the scaling
relationship. Just because the Newtonian gravitational
energy and the Maxwellian field energy are computable,
it is in no way implied that the metrical scaling
relationship between the two fields is known. The
classical electrical and gravitational systems of
units form two distinct and orthogonal systems. No
existing theory or system of units consistently connects
the gravitational and electrical fields. The general theory
contains no electrical arguments or principles to bridge this gap.
Gravity stands alone. Refer to any textbook on the general
theory of relativity for another perspective. >>
http://www.s-4.com/pulsar/limits.htm
So... the use of c^4 or in some cases I see pi*c^3
taking the ratio to Planck length etc. ect may produce
a big factor where we need a big factor but if one
is four-space-blind the way I am it starts to look
like numerology. I don't mean that in a derogatory
sense because the attempts are valiant trail blazing
where the path isn't clear. The notion of equating
a volume of space to mass/energy has merit.
The notion of equating a mass moving at the speed
of light has merit.
Quantitatitivly the results can be good and predict
what we already know... (from Cavendish or Etowash)
Qualitativly, the approaches seem to leave us in
the dark about what to make of optical tweezers
or white dwarfs.
KenST's fundamentals are in line with how a lot
of similar work with induced dipoles begins...
but the next rung on the ladder is a long reach
requiring Ewald sums, multi body simulation
or leaps of faith about 'space-time' or vacuum
properties.
I have to equate KenST's use of the term orthogonal with
the use in http://www.s-4.com/pulsar/limits.htm .
IOW... no real connection exist, so we might use
c^6 or c^8 or whatever the customer orders. :o)
Motion, in a pair of charge couples, (we suspect
motion is a necessary element) would seem
the logical way to proceed.
The use of c, implies the motion of charges.
The evolution *may* be the another right answer to
the wrong question, as in 'gravitational redshift'
where an accelerometer is mislabled as a clock. That
is not as some would argue, a harmless error. It
misstates EM propagation and any physical signifigance
of singularities.
If I have overlooked something rigoursly supporting
the use of c^4 or Cavendish's G please correct me
and the referenced URL.
Regards,
Sue...
I wish you had designed my dearly departed motor scooter.
The battery terminals were about 150mm from the fuel
filler... and they DID spark! :-(
>
> > We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless
> > something moves. So... Can the motion which we
> > analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the
> > chaRge couple?
> > I think you have already answered that. I just
> > need to go back and read again.
>
> Ok, maybe I should put an addendum to the article
> to explain things better, so your questions are
> very helpful.
Well you do mention light, so we have to move some
charges if that is part of the mechanism.
LOL :o)
Sue...
> Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> I wish you had designed my dearly departed motor scooter.
> The battery terminals were about 150mm from the fuel
> filler... and they DID spark! :-(
Hope that wasn't a serious thing, like a pube
cinger. I'm afraid I can't ride a motorcyle,
don't have enough room between my legs, to many
brains in the way! :-(
> > > We are *assuming* we don't get light or gravity unless
> > > something moves. So... Can the motion which we
> > > analyze be as simple as a chaNge is the spacing of the
> > > chaRge couple?
> > > I think you have already answered that. I just
> > > need to go back and read again.
> > Ok, maybe I should put an addendum to the article
> > to explain things better, so your questions are
> > very helpful.
>
> Well you do mention light, so we have to move some
> charges if that is part of the mechanism.
Well LIGO expects to receive g-waves at certain
frequencies. It appears the GR charge couple
solution would predict that energy is EMR, we'll
see.
Ken
FrediFizzx
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| snip
| >
| > And QVC helps because then we can model EM as a curvature of
spacetime
| > also. In fact, when playing with those magnets, it is pretty easy
to
| > see that those magnets are highly curving spacetime wrt the magnets.
No
| > magic required! ;-)
|
| *Homogenous* space-time you mean?
|
| If you don't see 1/r^3... then you don't see magnets.
| http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
|
| Half the volume of your 4d space-time is null and
| it is too easy to put things there which don't exist.
4D??? Heck we have to have a minimum of 8D or it doesn't work. ;-)
FrediFizzx
Sue...
Your response to the wiki about triple integrals
tipped me off that you might find that intriguing.
We only see a photon when it is emitted or absorbed.
We only see magnetic and graviataional domains when
they align dipoles, permanent or induced.
Particles can have charges but the force of their
motion can be electrically neutral over a region.
<<Recall that the electromagnetic momenergy of a
charge splits unambiguously into two mutually
exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: (1) that
which is radiated and (2) that which is bound 14
to the charge. >> [...]
<<The Lorentz-Dirac equation demands that this
radiation reation four-force change the inertial
plus bound e.m. momenergy of the charged particle.
The magnitude of the radiation four-force is given
by the invariant Larmor formula... >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910086
Sue...
Sue...
That is the same total I get.
Four dimensions for the physics and four
dimensions for the stuff we have to call
magic. :o)
Sue...
>
> FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
It's becoming less magical now-a-days. Darn!
"Our" Universe's "now" is a physical event horizon that moves at c.
Naturally the question is... an "event horizon" between what? Here is
more...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905221
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9906064
Two 3-branes? Ok, let's go for it. I'm easy.
Sue...
Yep...
That is the degree of abstraction you need for a
propagation model that assumes permeability in
spaces lacking structures to support it.
http://geophysics.ou.edu/gravmag/mag_basic/mag_basic.html
Sue...
FrediFizzx
Well... if we are to have "vacuum" inductance and "vacuum" capacitance,
then that means we have to have "vacuum" charge also. Gotta have a
spacetime for it to exist in because it don't seem to be in "ours"
directly. Now, is it two separate 3-branes with "now" being an event
horizon between or is it more like an embedded brane scenario? Anything
that is freakin' mostly hidden from us (on the other side of an event
horizon) is always going to have to be an abstraction. I don't see
anyway around that problem. But there are clues since it is not
entirely hidden.
Sue...
Why would you want to assume things other than what we measure?
0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> Gotta have a
> spacetime for it to exist
No... you only need apply appropriate transformations
to the near field.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
> in because it don't seem to be in "ours"
> directly. Now, is it two separate 3-branes with "now" being an event
> horizon between or is it more like an embedded brane scenario? Anything
> that is freakin' mostly hidden from us (on the other side of an event
> horizon) is always going to have to be an abstraction. I don't see
> anyway around that problem. But there are clues since it is not
> entirely hidden.
When driving at night, we see the moon going whereever
we go. We can, if we please, conconct a model of the solar
system that assumes the moon is in fact following us in our
travels which will mathematically correct.
The unecessary complexity should be obvious. :o)
Just because we can design a co-ordinate system which will,
by definitiion, conserve energy, charge, c, or some
other quantity, nature is under no obligation to color
between the lines we draw. :o)
Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
Ken S. Tucker
Sue, you quoted that paper, would you ascertain
it is correct?
Ken
Sue...
LOL
I might get through one equation in 27 days and
it is 27 pages long. Are you troubled
by integral rather that differential forms?
That can happen if you want to write timeless
equations.
<< So, we have come full circle in our investigation
of magnetic fields. Note that the simple result (345)
can only be obtained from the Biot-Savart law after
some non-trivial algebra. Examination of more complicated
current distributions using this law invariably leads to
lengthy, involved, and extremely unpleasant calculations. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node39.html
Maybe that is why Paul Gibbon likes computers.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
If that isn't what you were asking...
then ask something easier. :o)
Sue...
> Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Check out pg 23, note "Black holes", do you want
to quote those 1,2, statements?
> Are you troubled
> by integral rather that differential forms?
Both ok with me.
> That can happen if you want to write timeless
> equations.
Basically an integral physically adds a dimension
and a constant of integration where possible.
Ken
Sue...
snip
Because of the 'popular' image conjured up when
the term is used, I avoid using it. I don't see
that the musings (he calls them observations )
lend any physical interpretation to singularitiies
or infinities that pop up we treat an entity as
a point source.
>
> > Are you troubled
> > by integral rather that differential forms?
>
> Both ok with me.
They were not both OK a few posts previous, when I
offered the triple integral wiki URL. LOL
They are not both OK with Fitzpatrick because he
covers them separately.
Maybe a picture will help. Compare:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/thumbnails/RingMagIntThumb
from:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/index.htm
with:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/thumbnails/pathintthumb.jpg
from:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/index.htm
>
> > That can happen if you want to write timeless
> > equations.
>
> Basically an integral physically adds a dimension
> and a constant of integration where possible.
Yes... 'where possible'. The paper I offered was
to give some sense of the ambiguity that can result
when it is not possible, but a theorist tries anyway.
Time is an abstraction that 'seldom' is on the
same footing as spatial displacement so it is
very easy to commit kinky acts that nature never
intended with the dt below the fraction bar.
Sue...
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StokesTheorem.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreensTheorem.html
'From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge transformations'
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
> Ken
Sue...
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> snip
>
>
Use duct tape. :o)
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/thumbnails/RingMagIntThumb.jpg
> from:
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/magnetostatics/index.htm
> with:
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/thumbnails/pathintthumb.jpg
> from:
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/vectorfields/index.htm
>
>
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension
> > and a constant of integration where possible.
>
> Yes... 'where possible'. The paper I offered was
> to give some sense of the ambiguity that can result
> when it is not possible, but a theorist tries anyway.
>
> Time is an abstraction that 'seldom' is on the
> same footing as spatial displacement so it is
> very easy to commit kinky acts that nature never
> intended with the dt below the fraction bar.
The "relativity of charge"...charge doesn't
exist except relative to another charge, a
charge has no absolute existance, it can only
exist in a pair, but each does have an invariant
magnitude.
That's why I use
S^2=X^2+a*b Eq.(4)
where "a" and "b" dilineate X and S.
But because of QT, the distance S (or X) cannot
vary continuously, but only by quantized amounts
photons)which brings us back to your point about
"dt".
Consider the Electric Field of charge "a", E(a).
It does NOT exist since "a" doesn't exist alone.
But E(a)*E(b) does exist as an "energy density T",
like in a battery.
But the "T" is "quantized" so it can't be varied
continuously, meaning dT =0, but is not constant.
You can vary T incrementally, like DT where D is
a finite increment. Funny in the differential
calculus we make
dT = Lim DT => 0 .
Recall Planck invented QT by letting Action=>h,
instead of 0.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> ...
> > > Basically an integral physically adds a dimension
> > > and a constant of integration where possible.
> >
> > Yes... 'where possible'. The paper I offered was
> > to give some sense of the ambiguity that can result
> > when it is not possible, but a theorist tries anyway.
> >
> > Time is an abstraction that 'seldom' is on the
> > same footing as spatial displacement so it is
> > very easy to commit kinky acts that nature never
> > intended with the dt below the fraction bar.
>
> The "relativity of charge"...charge doesn't
> exist except relative to another charge, a
> charge has no absolute existance, it can only
> exist in a pair, but each does have an invariant
> magnitude.
Indeed, 0.511MeV is only half the story.
> That's why I use
>
> S^2=X^2+a*b Eq.(4)
>
> where "a" and "b" dilineate X and S.
> But because of QT, the distance S (or X) cannot
> vary continuously, but only by quantized amounts
> photons)which brings us back to your point about
> "dt".
Ah Ha! All matter is not atoms.
The restriction is artifical. But it may
be essential to other parts of the QT
formalism so we cannot arbitrarily ignore it.
>
> Consider the Electric Field of charge "a", E(a).
> It does NOT exist since "a" doesn't exist alone.
> But E(a)*E(b) does exist as an "energy density T",
> like in a battery.
> But the "T" is "quantized" so it can't be varied
> continuously, meaning dT =0, but is not constant.
>
> You can vary T incrementally, like DT where D is
> a finite increment. Funny in the differential
> calculus we make
Hmmm... I don't think you can put something in
the denominator that is discontinuous and still
call it differential calculus.
>
> dT = Lim DT => 0 .
>
> Recall Planck invented QT by letting Action=>h,
> instead of 0.
OK... you are getting some sense of what is troubling
me about your derivation where c^4 and Planck area
*looks* so elegant... but I believe it is so wrong.
(quantitativly it may be close )
I can't phrase it any better than you just did.
Words might come to me if I review some of the
material with that in mind.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Regards,
Sue...
Sue...
While you may not care for Roger Boudet's English
OR French, I believe he is ranting around a similar
issue and his calculations are better than I can
provide.
<< Nevertheless, because it is used
generally in conformity with the
Maxwell-Lorentz laws, QFT may lead to
right results. However in all
the problems I have met: spontaneous
emission (see [1, 1993]), quantum
transitions, photoelectric [7], even in the
calculation of the Lamb shift (at
least in its unrenormalized part) [8],[9],
the use of QFT may be advantageously
replaced by the consideration of the
Maxwell-Lorentz fields
created by the transition Dirac charge
currents. The reason of the presence
of ¯h in these field lies in the presence
in their ***sources***, the charge
currents, not in constitutive laws of the
fields.>>
However there is at least a case where
the use of QFT leads to a
major absurdity.
The quantization of the number p! ([1,1990]).
For the inattentive readers I emphasize that
I am not the author of the stupidity... >>
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p187.pdf
Regards,
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Yes Sue, thanks for the ref.
(read your other post to).
> << Nevertheless, because it is used
> generally in conformity with the
> Maxwell-Lorentz laws, QFT may lead to
> right results. However in all
> the problems I have met: spontaneous
> emission (see [1, 1993]), quantum
> transitions, photoelectric [7], even in the
> calculation of the Lamb shift (at
> least in its unrenormalized part) [8],[9],
> the use of QFT may be advantageously
> replaced by the consideration of the
> Maxwell-Lorentz fields
> created by the transition Dirac charge
> currents. The reason of the presence
> of ¯h in these field lies in the presence
> in their ***sources***, the charge
> currents, not in constitutive laws of the
> fields.>>
> However there is at least a case where
> the use of QFT leads to a
> major absurdity.
> The quantization of the number pi ([1,1990]).
> For the inattentive readers I emphasize that
> I am not the author of the stupidity... >>
> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-291/aflb291p187.pdf
> Regards,
> Sue...
Yes, the part you quoted is right on, and so
much more in Boudet's criticism.
IMO theoreticians tend to depreciate the
sophistication of the "relativity of charge"
I mention above. If SR is the "relativity of
velocity", then GR is part of the "relativity
of charge" because together they produce QT.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
OK Thanks :o)
I was beginning to feel like the schoolmarm insisting
ya can't chew gum in class... without knowing why. LOL
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
No guff Sue, that was super ref. (I read it 3 times).
AE was able to unify the Law of Conservation of Mass
and the Law of Conservation of energy with E=mc2.
((I once went to a tutor session with a rather
large intimidating equation that was wonderfully
sophisticated. The Prof pondered it for a few
minutes, got out his book and pointed to E=mc2.
That was Prof W.W. Sawyer, who is quite famous
now living in England.
That was embarassing! That's why I embrace Eq.(4),
a unified field theory for simple clarity.))
Another very fundamental one is Planck's E=hf,
which is free of differentials and integrals.
Then GR's E=(G/c^4)*L, your favorite :-).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I'm curious, it's 1:00 PM (13:00) PST
in BC canuckistan, what time is it for you?
Sue...
If
magnetism is to electromagnetism
as
London forces are to gravity
then
that relation might have some problems.
Hmmm... what does this suggest?
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics507/modules/m10/laser_cooling.htm
;-)
Regards,
Sue...
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
>
> PS: I'm curious, it's 1:00 PM (13:00) PST
> in BC canuckistan, what time is it for you?
Just finishing lunch.
Ken S. Tucker
Sue... wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
...
> >
> > AE was able to unify the Law of Conservation of Mass
> > and the Law of Conservation of energy with E=mc2.
> >
> > ((I once went to a tutor session with a rather
> > large intimidating equation that was wonderfully
> > sophisticated. The Prof pondered it for a few
> > minutes, got out his book and pointed to E=mc2.
> > That was Prof W.W. Sawyer, who is quite famous
> > now living in England.
> > That was embarassing! That's why I embrace Eq.(4),
> > a unified field theory for simple clarity.))
> >
> > Another very fundamental one is Planck's E=hf,
> > which is free of differentials and integrals.
> >
> > Then GR's E=(G/c^4)*L, your favorite :-).
>
> If
> magnetism is to electromagnetism
> as
> London forces are to gravity
> then
> that relation might have some problems.
>
> Hmmm... what does this suggest?
> http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics507/modules/m10/laser_cooling.htm
> ;-)
Hey that's cool (pun intended:-). As I recall,
the LASER works by "stimulating Radiation to
emission". I think the process of emission can
remove energy from the system (atom in that case)
so it get's cooler.
So if one photon goes into a system but two photons
come out, then the system looses the energy equivalent
of the stimulated photon.
Is that what you think?
Ken
Sue...
S.L.O.T. would certainly suggest that, but I honestly
haven't studied in sufficient detail to comfortably
say where all the jiggles end up.
Because the theory is explained in terms of magnetic
coupling, it is probably a bad place to try counting
photons. I don't see the potential for an ultraviolet
catastrophe, so why take the road worst traveled? :o)
Sue...
> Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, let's take a break and I'll tell you a story.
Well you know how kid's can be observant, well
this one blew my mind...yeah yah the bit left.
My son (Travis) noticed his power bar had a
little light in it, the old fashioned kind,
that started to flicker as it aged.
Then he said, it doesn't flicker in the dark,
but only when the lights are on.
So we get a flashlight and sure enough the bulb
flickers when we shine light on it. And the
more light the greater the flicker, evidentially
a LASER.
Sorry Sue, what were saying :-)...
Ken
Sue...
Interestingly...
A pretty good mechanical analog exist:
<< The vortex tube, also known as the Ranque-Hilsch
vortex tube, is a heat pump with no moving parts.
Pressurized gas is injected into a specially designed
chamber. The chamber's internal shape, combined with
the pressure, accelerates the gas to a high rate of
rotation (over 1,000,000 rpm). The gas is split into
two streams, one giving kinetic energy to the other,
and resulting in separate flows of hot and cold gases. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube
Sue...
Sue...
LOL
Yes... neon lamps will do that too.
Ancient equipment that uses them as memory devices
don't work well in the dark.
Sue...
>
> Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Well everybody needs to make a $
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
A real free man doesn't suck the taxpayer to
do research, he pays for it if it's right!
SSC == $11 billion to make more particles.
I'm ready to take a collection, what PP's
out there will give a rat's ass? none.
There are two types of theoreticians, those
who pay their own way, and those that are in
the way. If you're bright enough to be a
theoretician, you're bright enough to pay
your own way.
If you can't pay you're own way then get
the fuck out of the way, you don't qualify.
That's the occam razor.
Thus governmentally institutionalized
theoreticians suckin off tax-payers are
parasites giving real theoreticians a
bad reputation. Like Shatner said,
"get the fuck out of your parents basement".
"Get a real job"
I could name at least a dozen people who
post to this group who fall into the above
catagory.
Best to you..
Ken