Microscopic World vs. the Macroscopic World

[Wanderer101]

For Dan

General note:

I am still working on trying to figure out exactly what it is you believe and why. I think it is a work in progress.

I got your message loud and clear. Dimensional Analysis. I am going to heed your advice because you seem to really get what I am saying. You understand the essence of my arguments and because of that I take seriously what you are suggesting. In fact there is something that I am keenly interested in. I have read Maxwell’s papers and writings searching for clues. I am keenly interested in the method and detail concerning how he derived the equation for the speed of light. The equation we have been discussing. I want to know the details. I want to know what he was thinking and details of the model in his mind. I also want to know how the values for permittivity and permeability were arrived at and measured. You know why I need to know these details. I am assuming a discussion and study of dimensional analysis will assist me in obtaining those details. Am I right in this thinking?

Seriously, your post is large with a ton of interesting things to address and speak about. It would take me several days to go through it all and reply. Most of it would be distracting from what I am trying to accomplish. I know what I am trying to accomplish. I am still not sure what you are up to. I think though you have offered up some good advice. Dimensional Analysis.

My question to you is this, what is it that you would expect that I will find there? In your post there is a point in a paragraph that I strongly agree with you on and that is the discussion of the base units and derived units. I would love to hear you expound upon that subject in great detail. This is something I would like to hear more about and I think others reading would also like to know more about. As a matter of fact I would request that in your next post you make a small detail post about that and nothing else. I disagree with your comment though that there are no physical constants in the equation. I’ll leave it at that for now.

A few more comments from the massive post that I could not resist saying something about:

I don't know how to conceive of the M&M being reversed, are you doubting the length contraction equation? I'll suppose that you are doubting the interpretation.

No, I am not doubting the length contraction formula. That is a possible explanation for the results. I am not doubting the accuracy of measurements. I believe that the experiment was poorly conceived and that it was based on the false assumption that there would exist an ether wind that would be detectable by using an object (the photon) which always travels at a speed independent of the movement of the emitting source. Light always travels at a constant velocity. This could not ever have worked. They could not have known that at the time because there were only 2 people on Earth that new this to be true. Einstein and Lorentz and when Lorentz discovered he could not believe it was true, so in defence of the people of that time. The experiment seemed to be a reasonable experiment to try for the detection of an ether wind.

Mach’s Principle I have a strong suspicion, that you make the world of this kind of thinking, so I thought I'd toss the ball back about it.

You are partially right I like the spirit of this kind of thinking, but I do not credit inertia to Mach’s Principle. He is partially correct in that in my view everything in the Universe is connected but that connection, its effects locally speaking are limited to the speed of energy transmission, which of course is limited by the maximum velocity of light. So I do not credit inertia to Mach’s Principle. Instead I have developed my own principle.

Inertia is the result of the motion of unbalanced charge in accelerated motion within space. Inertia occurs whenever a body accelerates in space. As an object accelerates it causes the space adjacent to the object to contract slightly. This act of contraction of space around the object causes a resistance to the acceleration of the object. The resistance to acceleration we experience is what we call inertia.

Simpler put, “Space tells matter and energy how to move. Matter and energy tell space how to bend.” That quote I got from John Wheeler. I modified his quote a little.

Another interesting comment you made:

What is most difficult about special relativity, I mean, to understand? It is the elimination of absolute space and absolute velocity, or, in other words, the rejection of Mach's Principle, I suppose.

I agree with the difficulty to accept the notion of absolute space. Absolute space is detectable you just have to use the proper object in order to detect it. DO NOT USE THE PHOTON! Absolute space and absolute motion is detectable by the use of acceleration through space and only by acceleration through space. That type of motion is absolute. Actually there are so many interesting things in this post to discuss I could go on and on. I got to stop though as this will lead to another massive post.

You ask, What now?

Let’s play it your way and I suggest we go over the items I suggested at the top of this post.

[Stormy]

When you run out of time, you run out of space...hence infinity!...Same could be said either way, but what's the chance of the latter if the latter created time to begin with?...

[DanLanglois]

I have read Maxwell’s papers and writings searching for clues. I am keenly interested in the method and detail concerning how he derived the equation for the speed of light. The equation we have been discussing. I want to know the details. I want to know what he was thinking and details of the model in his mind.

Maxwell's 1865 formulation was in terms of 20 equations in 20 variables. The modern mathematical formulation of Maxwell's equations is a far simpler representation using vector calculus (Maxwell's equations can be derived by extending general relativity into five dimensions).

So how does the speed of light appear from Maxwell's Equations? This speed is the square root of the reciprocal of the coefficient of the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units.

I also want to know how the values for permittivity and permeability were arrived at and measured.

*If you revert to conventional units*, the coefficient of the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units, in the wave, is permeability times permittivity.

Dimensional Analysis.

My question to you is this, what is it that you would expect that I will find there?..the discussion of the base units and derived units. I would love to hear you expound upon that subject in great detail.

I'll try. It was already known, from *dimensional arguments*, that the ratio that I'm talking about, the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units, in the wave, was a speed. Or, shall we say, it *produced* a speed. And, this was a speed matching the then known value for the speed of light. That is to say, it was already known, that the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units, in the wave, was a speed matching the then known value for the speed of light, when Weber and Kohlrausch were the first to *show* it, by building what were, for the time, ingenious devices, and their measurements found a speed close to the then known speed of light.

It seems worthwhile to clarify the exact meaning of "the ratio of esu to emu" units. The ratio of the electric to the magnetic component ('units') is equal to the speed of light.

Now, I'll try to continue, but I'm kind of spitballing here, if it isn't clear what I mean, that's possibly because I don't know what I mean. I'll try putting it this way--why are we using the relation between the speed of light, the permittivity and permeability constants? To understand what?

This is to understand the mass, the ingredients that made up the mass. A generator is the opposite of a motor. It transforms mechanical energy into electrical energy, right? Well, consider:

The permeability constant has the dimension of H/m, which can be dissected.

The permittivity constant has the dimension of F/m, which can be dissected.

Like this-->

The permeability constant is a function of magnetic, electric, length, and time.

The permittivity constant is a function of electric, length, time, and mass.

Or, the permittivity constant is a function of electric, length, time, and (a function of magnetic, electric and time)*.

*Mass is a function of M&E field and time. Or, mass is not a stuffed or solid object, it is a substance that contains magnetic and electric (M&E) field and time. Again, a generator is the opposite of a motor. It transforms mechanical energy into electrical energy, right? Since light contains M&E properties, maybe I should say 'characteristics', here, mass shall also contain M&E properties('characteristics'). In short, we can conclude that the ingredient of mass is nothing but the M&E field. Also as shown by Albert Einstein, E = mc^2, where decaying of mass produces light.

EM wave does not show up clearly the separation of M&E properties('characteristics'). However, orbiting electrons in an atom do show the M&E properties ('characteristics'). The M&E field of a mass is the superposition of all the M&E fields of the atomic structure. Also, under certain circumstances, the perpendicular M&E field of the light can be deformed into two separate obvious M&E characteristics with a common field center. The energy of wave oscillates in the M&E field on its own frequency, propagates at the speed of light. The magnetic and electric properties('characteristics') cannot be independent because 'each causes each' to occur, according to the laws of induction.

The M&E components are perpendicular to each other.

Again, the ratio of the electric to the magnetic component('units') is equal to the speed of light.

So. Why are we using the relation between the speed of light, the permittivity and permeability constants?

Because, mass is a converse of wave.

As an object accelerates it causes the space adjacent to the object to contract slightly.

I have sort of a difficulty with this kind of vernacular ('it causes'), but I'll put a pin in it.

-- Updated August 15th, 2012, 1:10 am to add the following --

two items, converse, and Schopenhauer (who I've been reading a bit):

statement: if p then q converse: if q then p

An even number is divisible by two. If a number is even then it is divisible by two. If a number is divisible by two then it is even (true).

I have shown at length that Substance is but another word for Matter..the conception of substance not being realisable excepting in Matter, and .. deriving its origin from Matter, and I have also specially pointed out how that conception was formed solely to serve a surreptitious purpose. ('..it reduces the world of experience to a mere cerebral phenomenon.')

Schopenhauer associates material objects with reasoning about cause and effect. Physical objects, comprising form and matter, are empirical presentations. The self is the subject that experiences the presentations. The *physical form* of the principle of sufficient reason is the principle of becoming. The principle of becoming governs the the class of complete representations which may constitute the totality of an experience.

'From this essential connection between causality and succession it follows, that the conception of reciprocity, strictly speaking, has no meaning;..'

Meanwhile, numerical and spatial reasoning provide the conceptual framework underpinning mathematical and geometrical constructions. (Schopenhauer classifies space and time as a priori forms of intuition).

Acceleration, force and energy are examples of abstract concepts, with regard to Schopenhauer’s categories of objects.

Force can be manifested as acceleration (acceleration is one manifestation of force). Force can be manifested as energy. Force is related to acceleration via mass.

It is almost, but not quite, possible to reason in terms of one category of objects, namely material objects, such as mass, and arrive at conclusions about abstract concepts such as energy. Not quite, because mass, too, is an abstract object, though, actually. And, the mathematical form of the principle of sufficient reason is the principle of being. The principle of being governs the class of abstract representations or concepts. The principle of sufficient reason of being is that objects of perception must belong to time and space. And, not, that an effect must logically follow from a given cause.

..Matter..remains uninfluenced by the causal nexus, because it is that which undergoes all changes, or on which they take place.

..the forces of Nature..are outside Time, but precisely on that account they are always and everywhere in reserve, omnipresent and inexhaustible, ever ready to manifest themselves, as soon as an opportunity presents itself..

A cause, like its effect, is invariably something individual, a single change; whereas a force of Nature is something universal, unchangeable, present at all times and in all places..But the confusion between forces of Nature and causes is as frequent as it is detrimental to clearness of though..Not only are forces of Nature turned into causes by such expressions as, 'Electricity, Gravity, &c., are the cause of so-and-so,' but they are even often turned into effects by those who search for a cause for Electricity, Gravity, &c,. &c., which is absurd.

..the application of the causal law to anything but changes in the material, emperically given world, is an abuse of it.

Space and Time are so constituted, that all their parts stand in mutual relation..

[Wanderer101]

For Dan, Thank you for your continued interest in this topic and some very informative comments.

Maxwell's 1865 formulation was in terms of 20 equations in 20 variables. The modern mathematical formulation of Maxwell's equations is a far simpler representation using vector calculus (Maxwell's equations can be derived by extending general relativity into five dimensions).

I am somewhat familiar with this line of attack (extending general relativity into five dimensions ) this was the famous Kaluza Klein Theory. While Maxwell’s equations do appear in this technique a full unification did not work. None the less it was a very exciting thing to read about. I believe that it has relevance and meaning in the pursuit of Unification.

I believe that the proper amount of dimensions for unification should be 7 not 5. I know dimensional analysis.

While your explanation is true it lacks what I am looking for. I am looking for the mechanical image that he was using to create the 20 equations. In other words I am looking for the physical meaning and interpretation of those equations. If you know of a good book for that discussion let me know.

So how does the speed of light appear from Maxwell's Equations? This speed is the square root of the reciprocal of the coefficient of the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units.

Okay so now drilling deeper. Why should the square root of the reciprocal of the coefficient of the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units cause light to move at the speed the equation states? I think I have part of the answer as there are elements I recognize that I know should be in the equation.

Remember everything from my concept of reality is mechanical. So this equation represents a physical mechanical structure. A real physical mechanical structure not just an abstract one. You take a stab at this and then I will try and add to it.

It appears in this next section you are partially attempting to explain further with a discussion of the base units and derived units.

I'll try. It was already known, from *dimensional arguments*, that the ratio that I'm talking about, the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units, in the wave, was a speed. Or, shall we say, it *produced* a speed. And, this was a speed matching the then known value for the speed of light. That is to say, it was already known, that the ratio of electro-static to electro-magnetic units, in the wave, was a speed matching the then known value for the speed of light, when Weber and Kohlrausch were the first to *show* it, by building what were, for the time, ingenious devices, and their measurements found a speed close to the then known speed of light.


It seems worthwhile to clarify the exact meaning of "the ratio of esu to emu" units. The ratio of the electric to the magnetic component ('units') is equal to the speed of light.


Now, I'll try to continue, but I'm kind of spitballing here, if it isn't clear what I mean, that's possibly because I don't know what I mean. I'll try putting it this way--why are we using the relation between the speed of light, the permittivity and permeability constants? To understand what?


This is to understand the mass, the ingredients that made up the mass. A generator is the opposite of a motor. It transforms mechanical energy into electrical energy, right? Well, consider:


The permeability constant has the dimension of H/m, which can be dissected.

The permittivity constant has the dimension of F/m, which can be dissected.

Like this-->

The permeability constant is a function of magnetic, electric, length, and time.

The permittivity constant is a function of electric, length, time, and mass.

Or, the permittivity constant is a function of electric, length, time, and (a function of magnetic, electric and time)*.


*Mass is a function of M&E field and time. Or, mass is not a stuffed or solid object, it is a substance that contains magnetic and electric (M&E) field and time. Again, a generator is the opposite of a motor. It transforms mechanical energy into electrical energy, right? Since light contains M&E properties, maybe I should say 'characteristics', here, mass shall also contain M&E properties('characteristics'). In short, we can conclude that the ingredient of mass is nothing but the M&E field. Also as shown by Albert Einstein, E = mc^2, where decaying of mass produces light.


EM wave does not show up clearly the separation of M&E properties('characteristics'). However, orbiting electrons in an atom do show the M&E properties ('characteristics'). The M&E field of a mass is the superposition of all the M&E fields of the atomic structure. Also, under certain circumstances, the perpendicular M&E field of the light can be deformed into two separate obvious M&E characteristics with a common field center. The energy of wave oscillates in the M&E field on its own frequency, propagates at the speed of light. The magnetic and electric properties('characteristics') cannot be independent because 'each causes each' to occur, according to the laws of induction.


The M&E components are perpendicular to each other.

Again, the ratio of the electric to the magnetic component('units') is equal to the speed of light.

So. Why are we using the relation between the speed of light, the permittivity and permeability constants?

Because, mass is a converse of wave.

This part here is good stuff.

The permeability constant is a function of magnetic, electric, length, and time. The permittivity constant is a function of electric, length, time, and mass. Or, the permittivity constant is a function of electric, length, time, and (a function of magnetic, electric and time)*.

To me I see a confirmation of my theoretical concept. Permeability is a function of magnetic, electric, length and time. This function has 4 of the total 7 possible dimensions, magnetic electric length and time. Permittivity has electric, length, time, and (a function of magnetic, electric and time). What is interesting though is you included a slightly different version above it, a version that includes mass. My question to you is why was mass included in permittivity in this other version?

Amazingly you seem to speak of what is next on my mind. This question of mass I have above.

*Mass is a function of M&E field and time. Or, mass is not a stuffed or solid object, it is a substance that contains magnetic and electric (M&E) field and time.

This statement is exactly correct according to my thinking. Mass is a condensate of the E&M field.

My principle for mass:

Mass occurs as a result of the motion of unbalanced charge in accelerated motion. The accelerated motion of an unbalanced charge causes the space adjacent to the object to contract. As long as the unbalanced charged object continues to move in an accelerated fashion the space around the rotating object remains contracted. This contraction of space is what we call the gravitational field.

Notice I say unbalanced charge in my principle. What happens if have the motion of a balanced charge.

The photon is an example of a balanced charge object. Therefore in this case this principle applies:

Little to no mass is generated by the motion of balanced charged objects. Why so? These types of particles travel in a straight line not in a rotational manner. They travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. This type of linear motion does not cause a spatial contraction. Therefore these particles do not generate mass. Look at the standard model of particle physics do you see the pattern that I see. The embedding is subtle but it the pattern is clearly there.

So way back in the early 18th, 19th and 20th centuries they were on the right track these old equations speak to us (Mass is a function of M&E field and time). Do you see what I see?

Because, mass is a converse of wave.

I am not sure what you mean here. If you mean that mass is the opposite of a wave. I am not sure that I would agree with that. I will need to hear more of your side of that discussion before I make up my mind. To me mass is the result of EM wave in motion. Does that mean it is the opposite of a wave? Maybe I am not sure.

Interesting comments coming from the philosophy of Schopenhauer’s:

Acceleration, force and energy are examples of abstract concepts, with regard to Schopenhauer’s categories of objects.


Force can be manifested as acceleration (acceleration is one manifestation of force). Force can be manifested as energy. Force is related to acceleration via mass.

I agree with everything except the inclusion of the words abstract concepts .

What is the basis for this statement? Why does he believe that these things are abstract concepts?

Now I read the further reasoning that you provided below this comment but I did not get it. I did not see the explanation that was a comprehensible one. Could you try saying it in another way that makes it clear why he thinks everything in nature is an abstract concept?

[DanLanglois]

The accelerated motion of an unbalanced charge causes the space adjacent to the object to contract..

Shall we say, that when a charge accelerates, all the other charges in the universe feel a force trying to make them move? Which is to say, I think I'm contradicting you here?

..This contraction of space is what we call the gravitational field.

But, an electromagnetic field is what is created, whenever charges are accelerated.

Let’s begin with the definition of gravitational field: The gravitational field at any point P in space is defined as the gravitational force felt by a tiny unit mass placed at P.

In which case, if by going to an accelerated frame the gravitational field can be made to vanish, at least locally, it cannot be that it stores energy in a simply defined local way like the electric field--besides, gravity is related to mass: the greater an object’s mass, the greater the gravitational force it exerts on other objects. So I guess I'm not sure to what degree you are rejecting mainstream physics, you've got maxwell's equations on board, and etc.? Are you just picturing all this in a different way? Not quite following you on gravity.

I agree with everything except the inclusion of the words abstract concepts .

What is the basis for this statement? Why does he believe that these things are abstract concepts?

The issue here, and it may not ultimately be about Schopenhauer, is that there are different kinds of concepts. Energy, what kind of concept is it? It is defined, postulated, in geometrical terms, energy is made of energy. Heat is made of heat. A chair is a different kind of concept. I might say that a chair has four legs, but add that I don't know much about chairs, I'm not an expert. I might study the subject. There is nothing to learn about energy, it's invented, it's already been defined. Are you going to ask, what is it made of? It's made of energy. Conservation of energy, is the whole concept of energy. It's a purely mathematical relation. I'm not impatient to get anywhere with these kinds of musings, the idea that there are different kinds of concepts is difficult.

Could you try saying it in another way that makes it clear why he thinks everything in nature is an abstract concept?

No, not 'everything in nature is an abstract concept'. Rather, notice that when you look around, look up at the sky, you see material objects. This is the world that you experience. This is a world of cause and effect. When, however, you look at mathematical equations, e=mc^2, f=ma, etc., this is not a world of cause and effect. These relations go in both directions, which is the cause, which is the effect? In the world that you experience, there is cause and effect, because you experience it that way. In these math equations, you are not in the equation. Nothing material exists in these equations, the world that they are about, is a world in which you do not exist. Einstein's 'empty space in its physical relations'. What I interpret this to be about, is there are multiple ways of looking at the same thing.

Here is a very interesting point--what is the relationship between 'mass', and 'matter'? Note, you can turn mass into energy. What about matter? Can you turn matter into energy? Sure, and without nuclear physics. You can eat something. What, however, is the precise, technical difference between mass and matter, are they synonymous? Matter is 'anything that has mass and takes up space', you're familiar with this kind of definition? Kind of tricky, though, isn't it, maybe? Maybe you would add, that all matter can be broken down into tiny particles called elements. Now we're getting somewhere. Then, is mass of an object a measure of how much matter it has?

Not really trying to get anywhere fast w/these musings, but note, that you can understand 'mass' by thinking about weight.

I'm quite tempted to just delete these Schopenhauerian musings, because I'd really need much more space in which to dial out about them, I put these quotes up originally because I wanted to share something of why I hesitate at talking about something like gravity, or accelerations, 'causing' anything. Where Schopenhauer calls this kind of talk 'absurd', is the point--if you look at a geometrical grid, where there are coordinates for things, and math equations, there's no movement here, it's not like watching a movie. You don't say that the 'x' on the grid is me, let's watch this guy--oh, now he's decided to go to Starbucks! If there is movement, that would mean there is a curve that has been drawn. It's all there. There's no 'free will' and also, this part is maybe more difficult, there is no 'cause and effect'. There is only math. Which is neither. Math is equations--consider the nature of equality. This is this. This is the same thing as this. And this, over here, this is this. This is the same thing. That is the same as this, and this is the same as that. Which isn't 'cause and effect'. I see the pattern between these equations. Etc. Not 'cause and effect'.

It comes into what I make of this quote:

Remember everything from my concept of reality is mechanical. So this equation represents a physical mechanical structure. A real physical mechanical structure not just an abstract one. You take a stab at this and then I will try and add to it.

Lots of heavy going here, 'real'!! 'physical'!! mechanical structure NotJustAnAbstractOne. This equation represents a physical mechanical structure. Everything frommyconceptofreality is mechanical (everything is mechanical, perhaps?). I'm considering what you take this assertion to mean--what are you saying? If you consider mechanics, as a part of physics, there is classical mechanics, is what I think you might mean (certainly not quantum 'mechanics', right?).

Traditionally, classical mechanics is a sub-discipline which applies under certain restricted circumstances, pertains to specific situations. I expect you to be complaining, about how quantum mechanics has superseded classical mechanics at the foundational level. I'll add here, that subjects belonging to mechanics and fields are closely interwoven. Forces that act on particles are frequently derived from fields (electromagnetic or gravitational), while particles generate fields by acting as sources, this kind of thing, which we appear to be getting into.

Shall we say, that mechanics is the branch of physics dealing with the study of motion. Describing motions, dealing with the causes of motion (which is dynamics).

I talk a lot about energy and the conservation of energy, that's dynamics. Maybe let's do a little concept summary.

If an object is moving, it has energy, the energy of motion, kinetic energy. Kinetic energy depends on (is directly proportional to) the object's mass. Also, kinetic energy depends on (is directly proportional to) the square of the object's speed.

When the kinetic energy of an object changes, work has been done on the object. Sometimes work is not converted directly into kinetic energy. Instead it is 'stored' or 'hidden'. This is my notion of mass, which I suppose to be compatible with mainstream physics, although I somehow don't see it discussed in precisely these terms, mass, is, it seems to me, stored energy, or energy that an object (system?) has due to its position, or arrangement. Or, mass is stored work.

Then, how is energy, or work, stored? That happens, when a force does work 'against' a force such as the gravitational force or a Hooke's Law (spring) force. Forces that store or hide energy are called 'conservative forces'.

As I say, this is just a concept summary--you're on board w/all this so far? We'd perhaps get into pair production from here, some of your comments about where mass comes from, I don't know where you stand on traditional pair production, but I'll assume you know what I mean by asking.

If you mean that mass is the opposite of a wave. I am not sure that I would agree with that.

Mass is wave. Which is to say, there is similarity. Always in math, equality means similarity. By 'converse' I mean, also, wave is mass. There is similarity. To understand the mass in detail, we have to begin from the tiny atomic level of mass, which are the electrons and atoms. Mass is made by light. Is this controversial, even? The ingredient of mass is nothing but the M&E field. I've made these kinds of assertions before, you seem eager to agree on this specific point.

But then, if we relate mass and light, what do we base this on, for better illustration and understanding? Suppose, that generally, light is a traveling point energy. Mass is a non-traveling point energy. This is where I figured I was going w/it. For EM waves, the photon travels from one point to another point. Now, an EM wave is massless, but an electron has mass. What's the difference? Well, waves are one kind of kinetic energy transfer from one point to another point. Wave is a method of transferring energy, but not transferring substances or particles. Again, wave is a phenomenon of energy transfer, from one point to another point, but, which does not involve an object to be moved, from one point to another point.

Now, the angular momentum and magnetic dipole of an atom, show that electrons are circulating in an atom. Right? Orbiting electrons in an atom, exert a centrifugal force. But, electrons circulate in an atom, without releasing EM waves. What to make of these curiosities. Electrons do not emit electromagnetic waves. Well, electrons travel in the atom at a certain velocity, due to the balance of the magnetic and electric forces. Right? Do you have an unusual atom model (do I? not intentionally..)?

I threatened to get into pair production earlier, I mean, you know, a gamma photon is transformed into two particles, right? An electron and a positron. Pair production adheres to conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of charge. Do I assume that none of these principles needs to be explained? Not sure. Do we know about this process of transformation, pair production? Which is to say, do you? Do you disagree? Work is required, etc. One half of a photon transforms to an electron, and another half of a photon transforms to a positron, right? Work is done to squeeze the photon to become the particles. The squeezing of the M&E field of a photon to particles produces the magnetic dipole characteristic of particles. The magnetic and electric dipoles are deformed to a point. The magnetic dipole moment is produced. The vector of the magnetic dipole moment is perpendicular to the vector of magnetic field and torque.

I'm perhaps a bit rusty, but. Comments?

-- Updated August 15th, 2012, 8:39 pm to add the following --

A few extra notes--I can honestly say, that I've never seriously considered before, in this discussion, that you might actually have an idea for a unified force equation. But.

Your explanations that you already know that “Maxwell’s” vector equations are actually truncated (a serious truncation) equations. This is interesting. Tell me again, what you think constitutes gravity? You have a hypothesis, here? You think that the math of gravity and electromagnetism should be similar..? Maxwell was rewriting and greatly 'watering down' his own famous Treatise, some 80% of it, at the time of his death, because it was 'tainted' with a higher group symmetry algebra. Quaternions. I recall, in this connection, that you think it is reasonable to believe you have found a way to unify gravity with the forces of electromagnetism, the weak and strong forces in a way that can been quantized. Only unloved math tools are used?

I suppose, that, well, yes, the Maxwell equations are a system of differential equations. I suppose that it will have a quaternion representation. You *want* to see the Maxwell action of electromagnetism represented, using the noncommutative division algebra of quaternions? Unfortunately, the algebra is complicated.


The deep insight into gravity provided by general relativity, what is it, that the geometry of spacetime is not presumed? (my assertion) That is, electromagnetism works no matter what the metric happens to be. But, in general relativity, the metric can vary depending on where the observer is in spacetime: being closer to a mass source will have more spacetime curvature.

So, perhaps you figure, quaternions, because mathematical fields are equipped with four operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. What about, though, quaternions, associative division algebra? This other finite dimension? The real numbers and three complex numbers, that share the same real number, but have 3 independent imaginary numbers.

Quaternions remove an element of choice in vector analysis, which may be a good thing? Gravity, being all about how measurements change as one moves around a differentiable 4D manifold?

That is, observers sit at here-now in spacetime, or numerically at (0, 0, 0, 0)? In your view, quaternions represent an event in 4D spacetime.

Everyone does quantum mechanics over the complex numbers, hmm..

I expect you to be trying to clarify how the parallels between gravity and electromagnetism are evident. Of course, they are.

The Maxwell equations are gauge invariant. To unify electromagnetism with gravity, the gauge symmetry must be broken, opening the door to massive particles. The Maxwell equations apply to massless particles. Gauge symmetry is broken for massive fields.

Gravity is a metric theory, electromagnetism is not.

One problem, offhand, gravitational waves in general relativity are transverse? What is the mode, then, for you? Orthogonal to electromagnetism?

There may be some algebraic path here, I'm in over my head. Electromagnetism cannot be depicted in purely geometric terms.

Gravity is all about oscillations. You want to do calculus in *four* dimensions?

-- Updated August 16th, 2012, 1:16 am to add the following --

Check out this incredible, mechanical targetting computer. The machine computes functions like addition and multiplication with gears — you can see the mechanics unfolding!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F7m02XD ... r_embedded

[Wanderer101]

For Dan, I am working on the next post. I will try and minimize the size so it is not to large.

[Xris]

If you both minimize the outrageous assumptions you both constantly make you might find your posts considerably shorter.

[DanLanglois]

For Dan, I am working on the next post. I will try and minimize the size so it is not to large.

ok. A note, much fame is given to the fact that special relativity disregards the concept of absolute time, and the relativity of things such as time and length are simple to see--the Lorentz transformation allows very easy conversion of space time coordinates from one reference frame moving at constant velocity to another. I bring this up, in the spirit of asking, why does a space, a set of locations, need be neither absolute, nor a primitive concept--how could it be relative?

What it is this primitive concept that space and time are derived from? I mean, have you taken this question on board, as I'm not sure. Are you quite through, with absolute simultaneity (identified with physical time)?

[Wanderer101]

For Dan,

Just as a quick reply to your last comment. The question of time has been under my consideration for quite some time now. I am not sure that I accept that time is real. I suspect that when an object is accelerated the atomic processes are slowed by the increase velocity relative to absolute space. This system will cover both relative motion between different frames of reference and the absolute reference. It's a big subject. I am torn between what we have learned from Special Relativity which I know is testable and works and what I believe will eventually be realized that will subsume Special Relativty with a bigger picture. I believe that our experinece of time is affected by the limitng factor of how fast information can travel from one point to another. If information could travel at unlimited speed the Universe would truely have a time like Newton imagined. All events simultaneously everywhere in the Universe.

In truth if we discount the fact that there is a great deal of distance between events in the Universe everything does occur at the same moment. Unfortunately with distance and limited information transfer speed comes the reality of time intervals. I think that I need to talk this through with someone to work the details out.

Once we work out the bumps in time. haha... I think that time flow can be altered by modifying or biasing space. It is not possible to reverse time but I believe that it is possible to modify the Lorentz time dilation formula with the introduction of a concept that says that it is possible to physically modify space in a specific area. By doing this we can make timeflow faster. This can be done mathematically and if I am correct about space being a physical object that is modifiable it can be done physically and proven experimentally. We possess the technology now to test this hypothesis.

That is all I'll say for now. I will get back to finishing my other post.

-- Updated August 17th, 2012, 3:45 pm to add the following --

For Dan,

Well I tried to keep the post small and failed miserably. We should try and do no more than a paragraph or two at a time. Talk about one thing at a time in detail.

Shall we say, that when a charge accelerates, all the other charges in the universe feel a force trying to make them move? Which is to say, I think I'm contradicting you here?

My reply to that statement would be yes and no. Theoretically everything is connected and every movement causes wave of EM and gravity to be propagated. On the other hand these waves are immeasurably weak and have to travel vast distances so they take time before they arrive at distant locations. So technically all other charges do eventually feel the movement but not at the same time. The net effect being that only local movements of adjacent particles have a meaningful effect on other nearby particles. Locality!

But, an electromagnetic field is what is created, whenever charges are accelerated.

Let’s begin with the definition of gravitational field: The gravitational field at any point P in space is defined as the gravitational force felt by a tiny unit mass placed at P.

In which case, if by going to an accelerated frame the gravitational field can be made to vanish, at least locally, it cannot be that it stores energy in a simply defined local way like the electric field--besides, gravity is related to mass: the greater an object’s mass, the greater the gravitational force it exerts on other objects. So I guess I'm not sure to what degree you are rejecting mainstream physics, you've got Maxwell's equations on board, and etc.? Are you just picturing all this in a different way? Not quite following you on gravity.

This is a nice set of well thought out comments you make.

To address your first statement: Yes, a magnetic field is generated when a charge moves. Strange and important thing to note, charges are always moving. Therefore associated magnetic field is always generated. We decided to call that the electromagnetic field and Maxwell united these two forces into one so to speak. In reality they are two separate forces. They demonstrate for humanity the start of a simple pattern. The motion of the charge object creates the magnetic field. Think about this. Focus on this. Einstein once said “nothing happens unless something moves.” Motion is the key. As I said before a magnetic field is a torsional reaction to moving charge. Space turns as the charge passes by. A second deformation of space happens to a lesser degree when an unbalanced charge moves in an accelerated fashion. In this case space contracts. This deformation is to a much smaller strength. So I believe that both magnetism and gravity occur as the result of the motion of charge. Do you see the pattern? We know the cause of magnetism just extrapolate to get the cause of gravity.

Here is where I think I stray from traditional thinking. The property that we refer to as mass is not separate from the gravitational field. In other words mass is entirely and completely generated by the motion of unbalanced charges. In my thinking mass is entirely the result of a relativistic motion. To put it even more clearly no motion, no mass. For example, the mass for a proton comes from the motion of the quarks that reside inside the proton. Mass comes from the rotational motion of the 2 up quarks and one down quark. There is no object in the universe that has mass without motion. Look at the Standard model for particles. Every particle is always in motion. It’s the type of motion that determines how much mass a particle will have. This is a simple and sensible model. If you are a minimalist you should love this concept.

Now if you are really into physics your reply to my quark notion above will immediately be the mass for the quarks does not add up to the amount of mass for the proton. Well, what I would say to that is we obviously do not have the proper and accurate measurements of the values for energy and mass for the quarks. The measurements and values we have for these objects are obtained indirectly and in my opinion suspect to say the least. The values have changed several times over the years. Another problem with the property values we have for the quarks is that we are forced to bombard them with high energy particles in an attempt to measure their values. According to my reckoning this process modifies the values for mass and energy. Why so? By my thinking if you interrupt the motion of an object there will be a corresponding change in the objects mass because of velocity changes due to collisions. Wrapping this all up it should be possible to calculate the values of mass for any particle by using the famous E=mc^2 but with one very important modification. This formula is only good for mass to photon conversion. So in reality this formula is not correct for any particle that is not a photon. Ironically I believe this famous formula is the exception to the rule. Therefore there is still another formula that needs to be discovered. For all other particles that are not photons there should exist this equation. E=(mc^2)*Acceleration Factor). Also the constant c will have to be replaced with a variable v for velocity. The speed of any other particle other than light (the photon) will be less than the speed of light. The new equation will then be E=((mv^2)*acceleration Factor). The Acceleration Factor can perhaps be, for simplicity sake done as a constant as this constant will be in reality a dimensional constant which is a function of accelerating object moving through space. Not sure about that last statement.

I am not a mathematical wizard. I do know logic and mechanics in an intuitive way. This formula is the framework that drives all of reality. Someone out there has to be smart enough to take this the rest of the way. The proper construction of this mathematical framework will allow anyone to calculate the mass of virtually any particle. That in itself will prove my theory correct and get us all on the proper path again. So to answer your question yes I am rejecting mainstream physics because of the set of reasons listed above. Mainstream physics believes that the solution to the origin of mass is the result of an interaction between all particles and some mystery particle such as the Graviton which we have never detected and now the recently discovered Higgs.

Even if the Higgs does exist I believe it will not have the correct properties to explain gravity.

In fact my solution tells me that the origin of mass does not come from an interaction between all particles and a mystery particle my solution comes from the belief that the origin of mass comes from and interaction between all particles and space. In my opinion all this time mainstream physics has been chasing a red herring.

What are we to do now?

The issue here, and it may not ultimately be about Schopenhauer, is that there are different kinds of concepts. Energy, what kind of concept is it? It is defined, postulated, in geometrical terms, energy is made of energy. Heat is made of heat. A chair is a different kind of concept. I might say that a chair has four legs, but add that I don't know much about chairs, I'm not an expert. I might study the subject. There is nothing to learn about energy, it's invented, it's already been defined. Are you going to ask, what is it made of? It's made of energy. Conservation of energy, is the whole concept of energy. It's a purely mathematical relation. I'm not impatient to get anywhere with these kinds of musings, the idea that there are different kinds of concepts is difficult.

Okay, I want to proceed carefully here as I truly want to understand your point of view on this subject. You are not the only person on this website who thinks along these lines. You and they are all very bright so I take this discussion very serious. Please be patient with me on this as I want a clear understanding of your logic. You first define energy as a type of concept. So I now say what is a concept?

I looked it up. The word means, an abstract idea; a general notion or notion, idea, conception, thought. All of these synonyms are not physical objects. So a concept is an invention of man. So far we should agree. You have defined energy as being a concept for the use of describing a physical object in nature that we have observed to have certain physical observable characteristics. So far I think we are still in agreement. Now we must move to the next phase of the logic because it is here that we diverge. Your philosophical logic seems to be going into an infinite regression here as you say energy is energy Heat is made of heat. So now you see that there is nothing more to say about energy as it is in your words and invented concept and then it is nothing more than a mathematical concept invented by man.

At this point tell me if I have your vision of what the physical object we call energy is. I will sum it up. What I call the physical object that we call energy you believe is nothing more than a man made mathematical object. You believe this because we use equations to describe it? I am going to assume I have it right so that I can comment on this.

Thinking …. Thinking…. Thinking….. In order to further clarify your belief system I am going to ask some questions. I am not trying to be difficult I just want to understand how you get to where you are at.

The photon is a particle and a piece of energy. Do you believe that it does not exist if we are not here to perceive it? Since all macroscopic objects are made up of microscopic objects governed by math and equations is all that we see in the Universe merely a concept of a Universe? Does the Universe exist separately from our conception of it? If we invented the concept of the photon why does it always behave the same way in experiments? If the photon is merely a concept and does not exist independently of man why does it consistently behave by the same set of rules? Should a photon not behave differently if people have different concepts for what a photon is?

My impressions on this are: It appears as if you believe that the essence of what a microscopic physical object is cannot be known. The next part staggers me somewhat. You believe that because you cannot know what a microscopic object is it therefore does not physically exist on its own as independent object in nature. All objects are just mathematical abstractions invented by man? Let me know if I got this right. I think in your next comments below you address my concerns somewhat.

No, not 'everything in nature is an abstract concept'. Rather, notice that when you look around, look up at the sky, you see material objects. This is the world that you experience. This is a world of cause and effect. When, however, you look at mathematical equations, e=mc^2, f=ma, etc., this is not a world of cause and effect. These relations go in both directions, which is the cause, which is the effect? In the world that you experience, there is cause and effect, because you experience it that way. In these math equations, you are not in the equation. Nothing material exists in these equations, the world that they are about, is a world in which you do not exist. Einstein's 'empty space in its physical relations'. What I interpret this to be about, is there are multiple ways of looking at the same thing.

Ah yes I see you are breaking reality out into 2 separate worlds. The microscopic world governed by man made equations and the other macroscopic world being governed by cause and effect. The two worlds I am assuming are bridged together by some sort of decoherence principle. Oh lordy! I think I am at least getting it now. Hopefully.

I'm quite tempted to just delete these Schopenhauerian musings, because I'd really need much more space in which to dial out about them, I put these quotes up originally because I wanted to share something of why I hesitate at talking about something like gravity, or accelerations, 'causing' anything. Where Schopenhauer calls this kind of talk 'absurd', is the point--if you look at a geometrical grid, where there are coordinates for things, and math equations, there's no movement here, it's not like watching a movie.

Ouchy, Schopenhauerian hurt my feelings. He thinks my talk is absurd. Well he can join the club. LOL

Lots of heavy going here, 'real'!! 'physical'!! mechanical structure NotJustAnAbstractOne. This equation represents a physical mechanical structure. Everything from my concept of reality is mechanical (everything is mechanical, perhaps?). I'm considering what you take this assertion to mean--what are you saying? If you consider mechanics, as a part of physics, there is classical mechanics, is what I think you might mean (certainly not quantum 'mechanics', right?).

You are exactly correct in your assumption. I am talking about reality stemming from the most basic classical mechanics possible. The kind of mechanics of Couloumb, Farady, Maxwell, Lorentz etc etc. I have often thought that the Mechanics should be taken out of the name Quantum Mechanics. They should call it instead Quantum Probabilities. That is what it really is.

Traditionally, classical mechanics is a sub-discipline which applies under certain restricted circumstances, pertains to specific situations. I expect you to be complaining, about how quantum mechanics has superseded classical mechanics at the foundational level. I'll add here, that subjects belonging to mechanics and fields are closely interwoven. Forces that act on particles are frequently derived from fields (electromagnetic or gravitational), while particles generate fields by acting as sources, this kind of thing, which we appear to be getting into.

Once again you hit the nail on the head. I believe that mechanics for all of reality is about fields. Fields are the source of force and force is the source of action at a distance. Except in reality there is really no lack of conncetion between things but there is distance between them. So if you want to solve the age old riddle and get to the theory of everything you are going to have to come to place where I am at.

Shall we say, that mechanics is the branch of physics dealing with the study of motion. Describing motions, dealing with the causes of motion (which is dynamics).

I know the cause of motion. Are you curious? Do you want to know why everything in the sub-atomic realm moves? So my reply to your statement above is yes.

As I say, this is just a concept summary--you're on board w/all this so far? We'd perhaps get into pair production from here, some of your comments about where mass comes from, I don't know where you stand on traditional pair production, but I'll assume you know what I mean by asking.

I have already told you in this post about where I think Gravity is sourced from so we can discuss that some more in your next post if you like. One further comment on gravity though. It seems to me that some people think that the gravitational field is emitted by things that have mass. I see no distinction between mass and a gravitational field. Things have “mass” because they generate a gravitational field via their accelerated motion. Mass does not exist as a separate feature that particles possess intrinsically and then this “mass” magically generates a gravitational field. Hopefully this makes sense to you. If there is no motion there is no mass. You may say to yourself but motion is all relative. No….,,,, This is where, I thrust myself into firm opposition to mainstream thinking. Once again, ultimately speaking this motion is absolute and relative only to the stationary space. Gravity is proof that there is an ether. There I go scratching my nails across the philosophical chalk boards again. I am well aware I am a heretic.

I know only a little bit about pair production. Pair production to me it is a novelty an interesting detail of nature that is really not that important. None the less it is explainable with my concepts. If you want to talk about it we can but it will not lead to a fruitful advancement overall. Perhaps I am missing something of importance. Pair production certainly is good for analysis by QM mathematical techniques. I consider pair production not to important in the search for the theory of everything. Why you ask? In my opinion particles and particle interactions have never been as important as what goes on in between the particles (what causes them to interact) and what the physical geometry of the particles actually is. I am interested in the foundation.

Mass is wave. Which is to say, there is similarity. Always in math, equality means similarity. By 'converse' I mean, also, wave is mass. There is similarity. To understand the mass in detail, we have to begin from the tiny atomic level of mass, which are the electrons and atoms. Mass is made by light. Is this controversial, even? The ingredient of mass is nothing but the M&E field. I've made these kinds of assertions before, you seem eager to agree on this specific point.

You should see by my comments above that I definitely agree on this point. Although I would not say mass is made by light. It goes like this. I believe that reality has a simple process. Charge is a spatial deformation. It is an inversion or twist of space. This twist (spatial inversion which I call the source of charge) can be visualized geometrically proceeding across the x axis as a gradual change in the mechanical rotation of space. In all cases the rate of change in the rotation from one pole to the other is not symmetrical. This point is important and I will go into more detail later on. This is tricky so try and visualize this if you can. I repeat, the rate of spatial rotation is not symmetrical even though in the case of a photon you can have equal amounts of charge distributed across the x axis from negative to positive. In the case of a photon I believe that for example the first half of the 2 dimensional representation of the sine wave that is a photon is negative going. That rotation starts at 0 degrees and begins rotating through -90 degrees being equivalent to the downward peak. The spatial rotation continues for another 90 degrees increasing to 180 degrees of rotation. The photon is half way drawn out for you now. At this point the rotation continues past 180 degrees toward 270 degrees the positive half or top peak of the sine wave. Then finally the rotation continues and returns completed at 360 degrees or back to zero degrees of rotation relative to non rotated space. This is the geometry of the photon.

Now back to the important point I mentioned earlier. So far in this discussion of the geometry of the photon there is only one thing that can cause or be the source of motion for any charged object. Hold on because here comes the really good part.

While searching for the cause of motion of particles I went to a place that has always been a source of great peace and inspiration for me. That place is the ocean. It has always been a belief of mine that I could use the ocean as a place to discover truths. So upon a great deal of contemplation while staring out to sea I began to imagine different places within the ocean where motion occurs. The obvious first place was at the shore line where there is wave motion but this was not the right type of motion. I was looking for something more within the medium of the sea not on its surface. I was looking for something perpetual. I found it in an unexpected place. I found it at the bottom of the sea. There I saw bubbles rising to the surface. I imagined that the medium of the water was interacting in a special way with the air bubble. The air bubble always rises to the surface. Why? It has to do with density. The air bubble is less dense than the water. But still in order for the bubble to move in a specific direction there has to be a density difference in the medium. Fortunately there is. Within the sea the water there exists a pressure gradient in which water at the bottom is denser than water at the top. So of course the bubble continues to rise toward the less dense medium. This crude mechanism was what I was looking for.

Now in order to transfer this concept to space and the photon or any charged object all I needed was to discover an asymmetry in the geometry of the geometry of the particle density. This is necessary for the perpetual motion of particles. The asymmetry needs to exist entirely within the particle and not in flat un-configured space. So the ocean analogy is not a perfect match. Space in situations where there are no force fields tends to be isotropic. The geometry within a particle is not isotropic. Once again we must imagine the photon 2 dimensionally along the x axis. The distribution of charge along the x axis must not be even. In fact the charge distribution along the x axis has to be configured in uneven manner with the forward part of the turn or twist being slightly more compressed compared to the rear end of the photon. This higher rate of turn creates a stretching of space which corresponds to space being less dense in this region. It is this type of geometric construction that forms what I call the slip wave. It is a compression wave. The photon is essentially a self sustaining pressure wave where the photon’s forward section is perpetually pulled forward because it is less dense than the medium of ordinary space that surrounds it. The forward motion is also assisted by the fact that the rear portion is denser so the back end is thrust toward the front end as well. The good news is even though there is an uneven rate of charge distribution along the x-axis we can still have equal values for the quantity of charge along the entire length of the photon. The balance of the quantity of charge ensures the photon will have a linear flight path. A nice straight linear flight path minimizes the acceleration factor and causes the least amount of contraction and interaction with space. This type of motion minimizes both the inertia and gravitational contraction of space adjacent to the photon. This geometric system is the cause of motion.

But then, if we relate mass and light, what do we base this on, for better illustration and understanding? Suppose, that generally, light is a traveling point energy. Mass is a non-traveling point energy. This is where I figured I was going w/it. For EM waves, the photon travels from one point to another point. Now, an EM wave is massless, but an electron has mass. What's the difference? Well, waves are one kind of kinetic energy transfer from one point to another point. Wave is a method of transferring energy, but not transferring substances or particles. Again, wave is a phenomenon of energy transfer, from one point to another point, but, which does not involve an object to be moved, from one point to another point.

I must say your deductive reasoning is excellent. The questions are right on target. Most of what you asked has just been explained above. I will emphasize a few highlights. Light is a travelling configuration of space. It is a geometry in motion within space. Particles are not separate from space they are within it. Do not envision particles moving through space as a bullet moving through the air this is not the correct model. I believe that the only thing that exists is space and the various configurations that reside within it.

The photon is massless or near massless because of its special type of configuration (a balanced charge ratio) which determines its linear constant rate of motion. The electron is an unbalanced charge ratio. It orbits neutrons and protons. Circular or elliptical orbits are accelerated. Accelerated motion causes spatial contraction which gives the electron mass. Remember Einstein equated acceleration and gravity. All I am doing is literally extending what he has already said. I am extending his concepts to the microscopic realm. So this is what I am saying is the difference between photons and electrons.

The particle in motion is both a wave and configuration of space. It is a deformation that is made only of EM fields. If the EM fields are composed of an unbalanced charge the mass field is also generated. Particles are nothing but mechanical deformations, mechanical deformations are fields and fields are the source of mechanical force. Since the fields extend from the deformations by the inverse square law the particles behave as waves. When particles collide with other particles they manifest as particles. Important point to know: Notice how all three primary fields obey the same inverse square law, the electrostatic field, the magnetic field and the gravitational field. I have stated that they are 3 distinct types of spatial deformations. Yet they obey the same law. Do you think this is a coincidence? The success of Newton’s inverse square law explains a wealth of data like the motions of the planets the path of comets etc etc. This law has been confirmed for gravity all the way down to a tenth of a millimetre. So why do I think the inverse square law is so important? I believe that it confirms that we live in a universe with precisely three space dimensions. This is a critical issue, because deviations from the inverse square law would be a convincing signal of extra dimensions. So far no evidence of extra dimensions. In four space dimensions, Newton’s law would be an inverse cube law (double the separation, force drops by a factor of ; in five space dimensions, it would be an inverse fourth-power law (double the separation, force drops by a factor of 16); in six space dimensions, it would be an inverse fifth-power law (double the separation, force drops by a factor of 32); and so on forever higher-dimensional universes. So you see the Universe is giving us clues we just have to properly interpret them. Space is a 3 dimensional spatial object.

Now, the angular momentum and magnetic dipole of an atom, show that electrons are circulating in an atom. Right? Orbiting electrons in an atom, exert a centrifugal force. But, electrons circulate in an atom, without releasing EM waves. What to make of these curiosities. Electrons do not emit electromagnetic waves. Well, electrons travel in the atom at a certain velocity, due to the balance of the magnetic and electric forces. Right? Do you have an unusual atom model (do I? not intentionally..)?

This has confounded man for quite some time because I believe what you are saying here is that Maxwell’s equations predict that the orbiting electrons should be omitting photons (what you are referring to as EM waves). I have not done a lot of work here so far. I only have vague ideas about what is happening in this situation. The electrons form special shells (orbitals) at specific distances from the core of the atom. The location of the shells and the energy levels of the electrons at each shell location correspond directly to the physical wave length of the electron.

There is a mystery I still do not fully understand. What happens to a photon when it is absorbed into an electron? I suspect that it attaches to the electron because both are dipoles and this attachment modifies the wave length of the electron. So I have a break from traditional thinking because I believe that the electron is a dipole not a monopole. It is important to note that the electrons do emit photons when they drop to a lower energy level. So in my opinion the electron does not continue dropping into the core because even opposite charges do not attract to the point where there ia a complete merge of charge. So electrons cannot continue emitting photons by virtue of the fact that they are locked into shells. The key is that in order for the electron to continue emitting photons (EM waves) is that the electrons wave length would have to continue to diminish to infinity and that is not physically possible. Maxwell’s equations must be missing something to explain this. That’s my 2 cents for what it is worth.

I threatened to get into pair production earlier, I mean, you know, a gamma photon is transformed into two particles, right? An electron and a positron. Pair production adheres to conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of charge. Do I assume that none of these principles needs to be explained? Not sure. Do we know about this process of transformation, pair production? Which is to say, do you? Do you disagree? Work is required, etc. One half of a photon transforms to an electron, and another half of a photon transforms to a positron, right? Work is done to squeeze the photon to become the particles. The squeezing of the M&E field of a photon to particles produces the magnetic dipole characteristic of particles. The magnetic and electric dipoles are deformed to a point. The magnetic dipole moment is produced. The vector of the magnetic dipole moment is perpendicular to the vector of magnetic field and torque.

I'm perhaps a bit rusty, but. Comments?

My feelings is that Quantum Mechanics is pretty darn good with dealing with these interactions. I like that all of the conservation laws are adhered to. This tells me there is a physical consistency in the way particles react in these collisions. All this particle smashing is only important to me in one way. I am only interested in particles that do not decay into something else. Temporary particles are of no interest to me. I do believe it is important to understand why some physical geometries are stable and do not decay. I suspect there is a pattern to explain this hidden in the standard model.

Your explanations that you already know that “Maxwell’s” vector equations are actually truncated (a serious truncation) equations. This is interesting. Tell me again, what you think constitutes gravity? You have a hypothesis, here? You think that the math of gravity and electromagnetism should be similar..? Maxwell was rewriting and greatly 'watering down' his own famous Treatise, some 80% of it, at the time of his death, because it was 'tainted' with a higher group symmetry algebra. Quaternions. I recall, in this connection, that you think it is reasonable to believe you have found a way to unify gravity with the forces of electromagnetism, the weak and strong forces in a way that can been quantized. Only unloved math tools are used?

I already covered gravity above so your first question is answered. From what I have written above I do believe I understand what it takes to achieve unification. Einstein was correct all along. Unification of electromagnetism and gravity is in fact all that needs to be united. The standard model should look like this. It should be two layers. The top layer is gravity, electrostatic and magnetic. The second layer is composed of particle interactions like the strong and weak nuclear forces. It is important to note I do not consider particle interactions as forces. Forces and action at a distance are caused by fields. Pure fields which are continuous like the 3 primary ones listed above. These fields are not particle fields. Particle interactions happen because of the three primary fields. Now immediately you should be raising the red flag and saying that the strong force that holds the quarks together is much stronger than the Coulomb force. So it is something else right? No, the strong force is a different version of the Coulomb force. The quarks should not be thought of as separate objects all they are is 3 deflection points in a single structure bound by the Coulomb force these fields share the same space. Well that was a mouthful. What the heck do I mean by that? The neutron and proton are composed of a complex 3 dimensional geometric structure. It is a single unit that basically forms a rotating sphere with 3 primary nodes of deflection. You can’t separate these quarks because they share the same space. You would literally have to tear space itself apart to do it. These 3 objects are still spatial inversions they are still governed by the Coulomb force but are physically inseparable. To answer some of your questions above I do think that the math of electromagnetism should be geometric basically the same as GR.

I suppose, that, well, yes, the Maxwell equations are a system of differential equations. I suppose that it will have a quaternion representation. You *want* to see the Maxwell action of electromagnetism represented, using the noncommutative division algebra of quaternions? Unfortunately, the algebra is complicated.

I am sure the math is way over my head. I know what the basic form of the final equation for gravity unified to EM should look like. It is the one I talked about above. I know the full set of dimensions that should be used as well. What I don’t know is how to properly represent the dimensions. How good are you at mathematics? You must be into mathematics in a big way to even consider such an endeavour.

The deep insight into gravity provided by general relativity, what is it, that the geometry of spacetime is not presumed? (my assertion) That is, electromagnetism works no matter what the metric happens to be. But, in general relativity, the metric can vary depending on where the observer is in spacetime: being closer to a mass source will have more spacetime curvature.

What General Relativity to means to me is that it is the correct description of the geometry of space for the gravitational dimensional aspect. It does not explain what the source is other than it comes from something rotating. The work to be done would be saying what exactly the rotational component is (the quarks). The origin of mass comes from all quarks within neutrons and protons and also a small part of mass comes from the electrons.

So, perhaps you figure, quaternions, because mathematical fields are equipped with four operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. What about, though, quaternions, associative division algebra? This other finite dimension? The real numbers and three complex numbers, that share the same real number, but have 3 independent imaginary numbers.

Well I will take an attempt at helping here. This stuff is over my head but I have an idea what you are asking for. I see a point in space being represented by the traditional x,y,z coordinates. I also see that there are 3 possible deformation types that correspond to 3 additional rotations of space. There is also the dimension of time being affected not only by gravity but theoretically by magnetism. That I am sure is a new one for you to think about. Time in my theory of things is affected by the density of space the more dense or contracted the slower time flows. I can get into the simple reasoning behind this if you like. The more expanded space is the faster time flows so intense magnetic fields in my theory actually cause space to rotate which in addition causes space to be stretched apart somewhat. That is a radical new notion. It can be tested for experimentally if anyone cares to try. Also the speed of light must be changed to a variable as it should only be used when photons are being analyzed all other particle move at speeds slightly lower than the speed of light.

The Maxwell equations are gauge invariant. To unify electromagnetism with gravity, the gauge symmetry must be broken, opening the door to massive particles. The Maxwell equations apply to massless particles. Gauge symmetry is broken for massive fields.

The problem with the Maxwell equations in our case is that they are for mass to photons conversion only. Photons are “the exception to the rule particle” so the Maxwell equations don’t work well for the massive particles like quarks and electrons. In order to make Maxwell’s equations workable for all particle types the acceleration factor has to merged into his equations. The acceleration factor I spoke of earlier in this post. The acceleration factor will be equal to 1 when a photon is being analyzed and will be greater than 1 when other massive particles are involved. Hopefully I am making sense here. You really have to have a good grasp of my theoretical concept to get my meaning here.

One problem, offhand, gravitational waves in general relativity are transverse? What is the mode, then, for you? Orthogonal to electromagnetism?

The analogy isn't as close as you may be thinking; in a gravitational wave there are not two different fields that are orthogonal to one another. The wave equation of GR is the Einstein field equations, which as you already know don't have the same structure as Maxwell's equations. There is something somewhat similar to the "push-pull" in GR, which is that contraction along one transverse axis requires expansion along the other transverse axis. When considering a point in space I see it as having or sharing a series of only 3 possible deformations I see two rotation possibilities and one contraction possibility they combine into one single vector for the end result. I am not sure how these deformations should be properly summed together.

I see the gravity wave component possibly being orthogonal in a longitudinal fashion on the x axis while the other waves are rotating about the x axis. I hope that helps. I may have made matters worse.

There may be some algebraic path here, I'm in over my head. Electromagnetism cannot be depicted in purely geometric terms.

Unfortunately I believe that Electromagnetism will have to be depicted that way as all of the primary forces are geometric.

[DanLanglois]

For example, the mass for a proton comes from the motion of the quarks that reside inside the proton.

Now you're mentioning quarks here. Then, we're getting into quantum chromodynamics.

Now if you are really into physics your reply to my quark notion above will immediately be the mass for the quarks does not add up to the amount of mass for the proton.

The masses should not be taken too seriously, fine.

For all other particles that are not photons there should exist this equation. E=(mc^2)*Acceleration Factor). Also the constant c will have to be replaced with a variable v for velocity. The speed of any other particle other than light (the photon) will be less than the speed of light. The new equation will then be E=((mv^2)*acceleration Factor).

Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. There is no such thing as a mass-energy relation. What does exist is a mass-energy-momentum relation.

I am aware of the mass-energy-momentum relation.

Therefore there is still another formula that needs to be discovered.

You want the full relativistic kinematics. I could actually look this up, but it's something like this?:

(ec)^2=((momentum)(c^2))^2 + ((mass)(c^3))^2

That's for momentum, moving at velocity v.

This one, ((momentum)(c^2)), is (e times velocity).

So, energy times speed of light is then proportional to the energy of the particle, and energy times velocity is proportional to the momentum of the particle, and mc^3 is proportional to the mass of the particle.

Knowing two out of mass, energy and momentum, one can easily derive the third.

The proper construction of this mathematical framework will allow anyone to calculate the mass of virtually any particle.

What is the total energy of the particle? It moves at 3/5c. v:c = 3:5.

oops, got it: e = 5/4mc^2

Noting one result, massless particles move at the speed of light.

When Ev is non-zero but much smaller than Ec, E = mc^2 + mv^2/2. That's the non-relativistic (Newtonian) limit, firmly captured, the well-known Newtonian kinetic energy expression.

Another point, you made me look some of this up, the momentum edge should be labeled not mv (nor mc^2v) but rather ev, why?

It stresses the fact that the total energy (and not mass) is a measure of inertia.

In four-dimensional spacetime, energy and momentum lose their meaning as separate quantities.

A four-component spacetime vector emerges that describes energy and momentum in a unified fashion.

In loose loose terms one can envision this spacetime vector as a flow of energy at speed v in space and speed c in time.

The length of this energy-momentum vector is an absolute quantity, that is called..mass.


I want to emphasize that so far, I'm reviewing what I was tested on in school, merely. This is just mainstream stuff. Do I seem to be following you so far? Is any of this news/of interest? Am I missing your point?

Notice how all three primary fields obey the same inverse square law, the electrostatic field, the magnetic field and the gravitational field. I have stated that they are 3 distinct types of spatial deformations. Yet they obey the same law. Do you think this is a coincidence?

I'll give you electricity, gravity, light, that they follow an inverse square law (which is not precisely 'they obey the' inverse square law).

However, a magnetic field decreases much faster than an inverse square law. Nor can I quite assume, that for your purposes, it will suffice to point out that as you move far away from a magnet, the force decreases faster than an inverse square law.

Your point, is not merely, that the strength of a field decreases the farther you get from the source?

You are familiar, with descriptions of magnetism as 'not a real force'? 'Does not really exist'? Magnetism is the result of the movement of charges. You say yes!! But, then, that's why it doesn't 'obey the inverse square law'..perhaps I'm being a bit too clever?

-- Updated August 17th, 2012, 9:18 pm to add the following --

The neutron and proton are composed of a complex 3 dimensional geometric structure.

Hmm..the strong force only works with quarks. It is said, that the strong force does not actually occur directly between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, but in the smaller quarks making them up. The force is mediated by fundamental particles called gluons, named for the way they glue quarks together. Quarks each have a property called color charge which electrons don't have.

Okay, here is where I'm at in understanding your idea--are you familiar with trophic levels? Trophic levels, are the feeding position in a food chain such as primary producers, herbivore, primary carnivore, etc. Green plants form the first trophic level, the producers. Herbivores form the second trophic level, while carnivores form the third and even the fourth trophic levels.

The feeding of one organism upon another in a sequence of food transfers is known as a food chain. Another definition is the chain of transfer of energy (which typically comes from the sun) from one organism to another. A simple food chain is like the following:

rose plant -- aphids -- beetle -- chameleon -- hawk.

In an ecosystem there are many different food chains and many of these are cross-linked to form a food web. It is easily understood that many grass plants are needed to feed fewer snails on which, in turn, even fewer chickens would be able to feed.

This pyramid indicates the total mass of the organisms in each trophic level.

The energy pyramid indicates the total amount of energy present in each trophic level. It also shows the loss of energy from one trophic level to the next.

You make points about energy, that the energy is related to distance not time, this kind of thing?

You construe all forms of energy, as being caused by a curvature, or displacement, although in what, I'm not sure you're entirely clear about this, shall we say that it is related to a three-dimensional space manifold?

You talk about energy flowing from areas of high density, to areas of low density very similar to how water flows from an elevated or high density point to a lower one.

You want to define the fabric or what constitutes the physical structure of space.

You attempt some comments about how and why quarks join together. You want the properties of a particle to be derived in terms of a system formed formed on a three-dimensional space manifold. What kind of system, can we narrow this down? Well, it's a "structure" in space, you can add or remove energy from it, which results in changing the characteristics of it.

I just don't quite have a handle on whether you get around to defining a mechanism responsible for something.

Getting back to quarks, the color charge (the chromo in Chromodynamics) comes in three varieties or red, green, and blue, and each quark comprising a particle must have a different color, red, green, or blue.

No particle can be made up of components with identical quantum states. A stable particle can only exist of quarks with colors of red blue and green.

You think you can derive a physical reason for their fractional charge? Fine, make an assumption, but I'm not clear on what your assumption is--I mean, I'm still with you, as far as suspecting that you'll at least try to answer this.

You want space to, as it were, be able to oscillate spatially, something like that? Space, may not be the best word for what we mean, there.

You want to explain why quarks have a fractional charge, and how their color properties interact to form stable particles, in terms of what now? Geometry, apparantly. I'm not clear on what kind of geometry we're talking about. But, I'll try to play along. It takes three quarks of different 'colors' to form a stable particle. Because? Because one can define a particle in terms of a system on a three-dimensional space manifold, with respect to, well, something. Now, suppose that the colors of each quark represent the central axis associated with its charge. Then, you require three quarks, that have a different central axis, and this will balance the system, balance its energy, with respect to the axes of three-dimensional space.

A particle consisting of anything but quarks of three different colors would not be stable--in any case, you're right in line on that point. But you, sort of, want to put the color, or, therefore, put the Chromo, in Quantum Chromodynamics, by assuming, well, something, anyways, about space, about what it is composed of..is any of this usable?

Time in my theory of things is affected by the density of space the more dense or contracted the slower time flows.

I get this, in terms of you wanting to give 'space' the ability to oscillate, 'spatially'. These oscillations would be caused, by an event, and would oscillate with a frequency, associated with an energy. What values could this energy take on?

[Wanderer101]

For Dan,

Just some quick replies for today.

This is what I think we should try for. We should try and modify the E=mc^2 formula so that it can be used to predict the masses of neutrons, protons and electrons in every orbital.

Things we may need are: the best charge estimates for quarks. The radius or circumference of the neutron and the proton. The radius or circumference of each orbital. Derive or estimate quarks velocities, Derive or estimate electron velocities for each orbital.

Things we need to do: modify equation to add acceleration factor. Change C to V for velocity perhaps use “A” from Newton’s famous equation F=ma or use something equivalent and or appropriate for the new equation.

How equation should behave: When computing the acceleration factor the number will always be larger than zero. When we plug in acceleration factor for a photon the number will be zero. This way mass will equal zero when computing the mass of a photon. Unless of course if in fact we believe that the mass of a photon is above zero then some very small number can be used.

The goal is to produce an equation that can predict the mass of all sub atomic particles. This I do not believe has been done.

What we don't need: quantum chromodynamics

This requires explanation. I believe that although QE is an amazing mathematical feat it represents something that is not relevant for what we are doing. I will attempt to explain my reasoning here and you can let me know if I am off base with this reasoning.

My reasons for excluding QE.

Quarks are not held together by what the gluon. I define the gluon as a virtual particle that only exists when the neutron and proton are being bombarded by high energy radiations. I am not sure what they use to examine the neutron and proton, I guess it is either electrons or photons. To me when this situation occurs the high energy bombardment modifies the geometry of the neutron and proton. The neutron and proton should not be thought of as an object composed of 3 independent quark objects. The neutron and proton structures should be considered as solid sphere like objects composed of 3 points of deflections. These 3 points are as one unit each containing a third of charge that conveniently totals as 1 complete unit of balanced charge. This is not a coincidence. This is necessary to make it stable. The neutron and protons are essentially rotating spheres the electrostatics fields being interwoven together in space.

The gluon only exists when the neutrons and protons are under fire with high energy particles. This literally makes these 2 objects ring like a bell when struck. The vibrations causes standing waves to form inside the neutrons and protons these standing waves are what we have named as the gluons. I believe that in fact the gluons do not normally exist when neutrons and protons are not under stress. Therefore they really do not play a role in adhesion of the quarks. We discovered what appears to be a particle and then falsely interpreted that particle as having a role for holding the nucleus of the proton and neutron together. It’s a red herring in my opinion.

Adhesion of the quarks comes from space. Since these objects are a singular object as a whole we would literally have to tear space apart to separate them. This I suspect would take an infinite amount of energy.

Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. There is no such thing as a mass-energy relation. What does exist is a mass-energy-momentum relation.

I am aware of the mass-energy-momentum relation.

Wow, you mean I deduced that on my own correctly. I did not know that Einstein was aware of that. Amazing! Not bad for a guy with no physics training. I’ll pour me an extra pina colada tonight in celebration! I am glad that you know about that. Joy !

You want the full relativistic kinematics. I could actually look this up, but it's something like this?:

(ec)^2=((momentum)(c^2))^2 + ((mass)(c^3))^2

That's for momentum, moving at velocity v.

This one, ((momentum)(c^2)), is (e times velocity).

So, energy times speed of light is then proportional to the energy of the particle, and energy times velocity is proportional to the momentum of the particle, and mc^3 is proportional to the mass of the particle.

Knowing two out of mass, energy and momentum, one can easily derive the third.

Yes, I believe this is the right track!

What is the total energy of the particle? It moves at 3/5c. v:c = 3:5.

oops, got it: e = 5/4mc^2

Noting one result, massless particles move at the speed of light.

When Ev is non-zero but much smaller than Ec, E = mc^2 + mv^2/2. That's the non-relativistic (Newtonian) limit, firmly captured, the well-known Newtonian kinetic energy expression.

Another point, you made me look some of this up, the momentum edge should be labeled not mv (nor mc^2v) but rather ev, why?

It stresses the fact that the total energy (and not mass) is a measure of inertia.

In four-dimensional spacetime, energy and momentum lose their meaning as separate quantities.

A four-component spacetime vector emerges that describes energy and momentum in a unified fashion.

In loose loose terms one can envision this spacetime vector as a flow of energy at speed v in space and speed c in time.

The length of this energy-momentum vector is an absolute quantity, that is called..mass.

Okay, sounds good so far.

I want to emphasize that so far, I'm reviewing what I was tested on in school, merely. This is just mainstream stuff. Do I seem to be following you so far? Is any of this news/of interest? Am I missing your point?

This looks good so far. I am hearing the right sort of things. I am anxious to see the final result of all of this. Hopefully my suggestions above will help add something a bit new to fine tune things a bit.

I'll give you electricity, gravity, light, that they follow an inverse square law (which is not precisely 'they obey the' inverse square law).

However, a magnetic field decreases much faster than an inverse square law. Nor can I quite assume, that for your purposes, it will suffice to point out that as you move far away from a magnet, the force decreases faster than an inverse square law.

Yes the magnetic field is different for a good reason though. The 1/r^2 law results from what are called monopoles, which are basically point-sources of the field. Single electric charges are monopoles which is why the field of a single electric source goes like 1/r^2 as you move away from it. If you put a positive and negative charge near each other (and keep them separated), you have what is called a dipole. Since there's one positive and one negative charge, there's a 1/r^2 field pointing in towards the charges and a 1/r^2 field pointing away from the charges. The 1/r^2 terms cancel each other out and you end up with the next biggest term, which is 1/r^3. This is called an electric dipole field. So this affects the decay rate. So the magnetic field is a special case to me. Thanks for correcting me on that point.

You are familiar, with descriptions of magnetism as 'not a real force'? 'Does not really exist'? Magnetism is the result of the movement of charges. You say yes!! But, then, that's why it doesn't 'obey the inverse square law'..perhaps I'm being a bit too clever?

Just answered this above. Good point though!

Hmm..the strong force only works with quarks. It is said, that the strong force does not actually occur directly between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, but in the smaller quarks making them up. The force is mediated by fundamental particles called gluons, named for the way they glue quarks together. Quarks each have a property called color charge which electrons don't have.

Well I have already given you my theory on what the Gluons are for what it is worth. You bring up the point of color charge. I have never really understood how that works perhaps you can give me a layman’s basic understanding of what color charge is all about. I would like to try and understand that better.

You attempt some comments about how and why quarks join together. You want the properties of a particle to be derived in terms of a system formed on a three-dimensional space manifold. What kind of system, can we narrow this down? Well, it's a "structure" in space, you can add or remove energy from it, which results in changing the characteristics of it.

I just don't quite have a handle on whether you get around to defining a mechanism responsible for something.

The mechanism stems from the one and single object that exists which is the 3 dimensional space manifold. I am leaving time out for right now. The mechanics is straight forward. Particles, by the special geometric deformational structure form self sustaining pressure waves within the medium of space. This is necessary for movement of all particles. Particles deform the space they occupy in a way that creates a spatial density imbalance and this density imbalance causes mechanical movement of the particle. This is the engine that drives the universe. I am trying to give you the best explanation possible. I hope this helps. The effort of space trying to restore itself to a balanced state causes the motion of particles. The math that best explains the mechanism is the Lorentz Transformations.

You want to explain why quarks have a fractional charge, and how their color properties interact to form stable particles, in terms of what now? Geometry, apparantly.

Yes I think that this is the correct path to follow.

Now, suppose that the colors of each quark represent the central axis associated with its charge. Then, you require three quarks, that have a different central axis, and this will balance the system, balance its energy, with respect to the axes of three-dimensional space.

Yes, the 3 charges compose a complex 3 dimensional object that basically because of its rapid rotation could be approximated to being equivalent to a sphere. I would estimate it to have a rotational speed to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 99 percent of the speed of light. Just an educated guess for the speed. It could be a little less than that.

A particle consisting of anything but quarks of three different colors would not be stable--in any case, you're right in line on that point. But you, sort of, want to put the color, or, therefore, put the Chromo, in Quantum Chromodynamics, by assuming, well, something, anyways, about space, about what it is composed of..is any of this usable?

I think that you are getting the idea of what my concept is. I am a man of concepts. I very much appreciate your willingness to play along with this idea to see where it goes.

I get this, in terms of you wanting to give 'space' the ability to oscillate, 'spatially'. These oscillations would be caused, by an event, and would oscillate with a frequency, associated with an energy. What values could this energy take on?

Yes this is very close. Particles are geometries that essentially are, I believe equivalent to vibrations of space. So what we have is the 3 dimensional manifold that does not move other than in ways of slight deformations. Space itself being a substance consisting of a continuous smooth elastic solid. Fortunately as long as macroscopic objects move through space at a constant speed there is no friction. To space it is if these objects are not moving at all.

The effort of acceleration does change the object. The acceleration is stored within the space adjacent to the object as it moves in the form of a Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. The transformations of Lorentz are the result of that acceleration. Time dilation and length contraction and increase in mass remain with the object as a geometric deformation that should be considered an absolute motion and so this motion is recorded into space as a contraction affecting the mass with a relativistic increase and a slowing of time experience for the object. At the necessary time I can explain the magic of time dilation according to my theoretical concept. We can save that for later.

The lack of friction for objects moving at a constant velocity is necessary property or behaviour for space to have. Without this feature we have a broken Universe that cannot support life. So it is good that steady non accelerating objects remain in motion without friction or loss of motion. Only when objects move with an accelerated motion does space reveal itself. The acceleration of an object through space stores the energy of the acceleration within the geometry of space via a contraction. The act of space contracting is the inertia we feel. The additional motion of an object is physically stored as a contraction of the adjacent space surrounding the object. That storage of motion is the mass of an object. As long as the object remains in accelerated motion it has mass. So in a way we have a system that converts accelerated motion into a deformation of spatial geometry. Remember space tells particles how to move and particle motion tells space how to bend.

I am not sure what you mean by saying what values could this energy take on. Hopefully what I said above helps some.

[DanLanglois]

Some physicists who are active in the field are cautious about putting forward any opinions on the existence of quarks and their fundamental meaning. Just auxiliary concepts, which do not have a fundamental character, perhaps (like the terms in which we were just discussing magnetic poles). I'm not sure that I think it really makes sense to demand a definite answer.

Practically no doubt remains that quarks do not exist in a free state. What is the confinement mechanism? Shall we say, that there are many fascinating problems in microphysics. Shall we say, that this is the most advanced and fundamental area of physics. Check it out, can I even say 'always will be'? This is its cutting edge. I am sitting at my desk in a tidy, well-lit office overlooking a garden, a lake. That is, when I am not lounging on a couch at home. I meditate on 'the nature of things'. I perform some calculations. However, Cal Tech is within walking distance, I live in Pasadena. My point is, what is 'hot' in physics and astrophysics? Quarks and gluons and grand unification theory, maybe? Quantum chromodynamics? Leptons? Magnetic monopoles? Neutrino mass? Interaction between particles at high and superhigh energies? Phase transitions in a vacuum? Fundamental length? Proton decay? I am not entirely competent in the field. Call this, just a little time-out..


If we say, that matter and energy are simply different types of curvature of space.

That's a geometric concept.

Simpler put, “Space tells matter and energy how to move. Matter and energy tell space how to bend.” That quote I got from John Wheeler. I modified his quote a little.

No, how about this: energy and matter are different manifestations of the gravitational field. If one moves the other moves also. If matter moves, if visible spacetime moves, then your precious invisible spacetime background moves too.

Absolute space is detectable you just have to use the proper object in order to detect it.

So matter then, perhaps, shall we say, cannot be separated from spacetime, which is the gravitational field. The more the gravitational field is restructured, the more it manifests itself as having more gravitational effects, or, as mass.

But when I say 'restructured', I mean, restructured in what? In less flexibility? In more layers? Layers of what sort? Restructured in what? Is something getting more complex? Less internal freedom?

You seem very impressed with your engineering picture, but I still don't get that part. The mechanism. Or, the mechanism, to explain..what? Some zone? Some sphere, did you say? Some womb? Some island? Some system? You talk about friction, you talk about density. Density, would that be some 'tension', which is created? By things, pressing upon each other? What things? What basic components? Like, you answer that question, and the various combinations between energy and matter are explained. Bam.

Some, like, essential dynamic process will explain the creation of matter and energy, motion?

You protest against the notion that spacetime is not, shall we say, a realworld event. Apparently, this is because, for you, it is geometrically present in every, what, every molecule, every cell, every fundamental particle?

Don't get me wrong, I rather like the idea that 'gravity' is intrinsic, like, omni-directional. That matter is gravity. Matter and light as, perhaps, restructured spacetime.

Would the nuclei of atoms be somezonesomespheresomewombsomeislandsomesystem? A new space? Generated, by a new process.

let me back up, am I funning? The part that I like, is questioning the notion that gravity is created by mass. So an object 'creates' gravitational waves. Between 'objects', intermediating particles - called 'bosons' - are exchanged. This is a 'particle' approach. Could such an approach be fundamentally wrong. What if gravity, which supposedly happens through separate particles, is, rather, what if we postulate that it is an inherent property of a background. And, what is created by it, the background, is still it, the background.

So all somezonesomespheresomewombsomeislandsomesystem's all objects, all beings, are made of background 'stuff', are interconnected--if one moves, that has an effect on the other. If one moves, this will influence the position, or motion, of other objects. It's logic. This is 'gravity', or what we call 'gravity'. Essentially?

Supposeing that 'matter' influences/curves spacetime. No, nope. It's, like, a stress efect between objects. It's the result of the interconnectivity. The dynamics of spacetime will influence matter--it's logic. What is 'matter'? We're talking about something that has been, itself, restructured.

Still curious about your bringing up 'friction'. Between what, now? Friction will create vibrations? In what, now? This is our heat, our radiation, our nuclear decay, perhaps?

Mass, is a property given to local areas. Local areas with what? More density is reached?

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 11:45 pm to add the following --

All dimensions are subsets of time?

-- Updated August 19th, 2012, 11:58 pm to add the following --

Everything in the universe is definable as a motion?

[Wanderer101]

For Dan,

So you live in sunny California. Do you work at Cal Tech as a physicist? That is really cool!

Practically no doubt remains that quarks do not exist in a free state. What is the confinement mechanism?

I tried to explain the confinement mechanism but I guess it was insuffiecent. The best I can come up with is to try and get you to viusalize what I think the quark structure is. Then you can decide for yourself whether you think it is a reasonable concept or not. The quarks are a single unit whose deformational fields share the same space. That means that they are inseparable because of the tension of space itself. That is the mechanism of confinement. All other particles do not share the same space. They are separate from each other so they are much easier to separate. Perhaps you can tell me just what exactly is missing from my explanation.

No, how about this: energy and matter are different manifestations of the gravitational field. If one moves the other moves also. If matter moves, if visible spacetime moves, then your precious invisible spacetime background moves too.

Well it is something to consider. I have considered it but I am not convinced spacetime moves. What I believe moves is the geometric configurations within the spacetime object. We call these geometric configurations particles.

So do you think we can work on modifying the equation so that we can can use it to predict particle masses?

But when I say 'restructured', I mean, restructured in what? In less flexibility? In more layers? Layers of what sort? Restructured in what? Is something getting more complex? Less internal freedom?

You are making it more complex than it really is. When space restructures (contracts), there is not more layers because space is smooth and continuous. Space is elastic so what happens is similiar to what happens in a pice of rubber when it contracts. In contraction the tension of space decreases. In contaction the density of space increases. This is why light appears to slow down. There is a transformation in the coordinates of space when a gravitational field is present. If we had a truely rigid rod that was uneffected by gravity in other words would not shink in the presence of a gravitational field and that rod measured exactly a meter long. We could use it to measure space before the introduction of the gravitational field and then after. Before the gravitational field space would be equivalent to 1 meter in length. After the introduction of the gravitational field I believe that for the same length of the rigid 1 meter long rod we would now have more space physically contained in the meter's worth of space. Visualize this, expand a balloon by blowing it up. Then draw some dots on it separate the dots by 1 inch. Now let out the air and measure the distance between the dots. The distance will now be less than 1 inch. That is what I believe happens to space during contraction. There is physically more material substance of space in a given area than there was when there was no gravitational field.

So why does light slow down in a gravitational fleld. In reality technically speaking it does not slow down, there simply is more distance to traverse in a condensed region of space for a given distance when a gravitational field is present. Light in reality is still moving at the same speed. I hope this helps.

You protest against the notion that spacetime is not, shall we say, a realworld event. Apparently, this is because, for you, it is geometrically present in every, what, every molecule, every cell, every fundamental particle?

Yes ,Space is all pervasive. There is nothing else. Particles are geomtries consisting of deformations in the form of spatial inversions. That simply is all there is.

Still curious about your bringing up 'friction'. Between what, now? Friction will create vibrations? In what, now? This is our heat, our radiation, our nuclear decay, perhaps?

Perhaps friction is not the best word to use. I think drag may be a better word or description. Does this make it more clear?

-- Updated August 20th, 2012, 1:26 pm to add the following --

Hey can anyone suggest a good book about an introduction to philosophy and logic?

[DanLanglois]

Hi, I'm attending to your post--I'm sure I'll come up with something garrulous enough, just contemplating the ifs..

[Wanderer101]

Thanks Dan, I was getting a little worried there for a moment.