"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| | This reply is to Sue as well.
| |
| | Jay R. Yablon wrote:
| | Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
| | "Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
| | action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
| | consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.
| |
| | Recall
| |
| | PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE
| |
| | is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM
and
| | GR.
| |
| | To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
| | temperature when one of those are changed the paper
| | suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
| | Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
| | the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".
| |
| | Hi Ken:
| |
| | Please explain as clearly as possible what you are seeing
here. I
| would
| | agree that in principle, matter must exchange energy with the
| gravitational
| | field in discrete "packets" not continuously. Planck's delta
E =
| n h-bar
| | frequency.
| |
| | But, you seem to think that this quantization actually emerges
out
| of the
| | "Principle of Equilibrium" and might be cranked out of the
| equations already
| | in the paper. How?
| |
| | Because I replied by email to Jay I'll post this for Sue and
all.
| |
| | Jay has these equations,
| |
| | k_v = K,v = 0 (k=kappa).
| |
| | K=sqrt(-g) E.B = scalar.
| |
| | I think Jay and I agree to the above.
| |
| | Here's what Tucker further argues,
| |
| | Use "$" for an integral and get,
| |
| | $ K,v dx^v = $ dK = K = $ k_v dx^v ,
| |
| | proving the constant of integration of $ k_v dx^v = K.
| |
| | Is that agreeable?
| |
| | Ok then, let 2 distinct geodesics "A" and "B" exist,
| |
| | k_v = k(A)_v - k(B)_v
| |
| | A
| | $ k_v dx^v = K as a minimum
| | B
| |
| | K appears as the quantized input (difference) to move from
| | one geodesic to another. For example going from geodesic
| | A=B=C needs 2K etc... nK, n = integer.
| |
| | It would be fantastic if these results can self-quantize the
| energy
| | exchanges between matter and gravitational field.
| | Jay.
| |
| | Well Tucker reads that in,
| |
| | k_v = K,v = 0
| |
| | as his interpretation. Physically a particle in freefall
| | moving along geodesic "A" according to k(A)_v =0
| | is struck by a photon that varies it's geodesic by a
| | quantized amount, (discontinuous quantity), I find to
| | be K, resulting in a new geodesic k(B)_v.
| |
| | There is precedent. Planck's invariant constant "h" is
| | in relative units, (ergs x seconds).
| |
| | So I suggest (conjecture) the constant
| |
| | K=sqrt(-g) E.B
| |
| | (is on a similiar footing as Planck's "h") , which I currently
| | interperate as an "invariant constant of energy density".
| | Regards
| | Ken S. Tucker
| |
| | OK. KenST. Your method seeks to produce standard atomic
| | quanta. I don't see the mechanism which I described as capable
| | of that. Your method may be useful where you are focused on
| | sub atomic structure but I will be watching with interest how
| | it deals with long-range electrically neutral forces.
|
| Key words; "long-range electrically neutral". How do we know that
is
| true to the level of gravity ~ 10^-42? We simply don't have the
| experimental capability to see if an object really is truely
| electrically neutral. But what I think is more important is putting
EM
| in the same framework as GR. Spacetime is curved or "tilted" way
more
| by EM than by "neutral" matter wrt other charges. Very easy to
imagine
| this with the quantum "vacuum" as a medium as Volovik proposes.
More
| difficult to make it all work out mathematically.
|
| OOps. Sorry for empty post. (some say all mine are) )

Thanks for not just giving a bunch of quotes with no comments of your
own explaining what you are quoting. ;-) hint, hint

| I'll have to respond to Tensor-Tucker separately after I decrypt
| his post.
|
| You are experssing a PoV that KenST caused me to doubt when
| he pointed out how London forces operate. Your argurment about
| measurement limitations in comparing Coulomb vs. gravitaional forces
| cuts both ways.

Which "both ways"?

| You are imbuing a charge with a unique longrange force responsible
| for gravity and inertia. I certainly can't disprove that and it is a
| popular concept.

Not a charge. Charges. It always takes at least two to tango. As we
know, electric charges are repulsive or attractive; the trick to explain
in that kind of a scenario is why "neutral" matter always seems to
cancel out the replusive part and leave a very slight attractive part.
This would also mean that maybe the electric charge of an electron is
not exactly oppositely the same as that of a proton's.

| I am considering that gravity is only operative for macro atomic
| ensembles.

Well, that is how particle physics deals with gravity so far. You are
not alone. ;-)

| But I agree "more important is putting EM in the same
| framework as GR."
|
| One or the the other paradigms has to bend a bit for that to
| happen.

We are already beginning to investigate a Super-GR concept. For me, the
answer has to be Super-GR because I believe that spinors are more
fundamental than tensors. Two similar but opposite spinors can make a
tensor.

| Where you say:
| Spacetime is curved or "tilted" way more by EM than by
| "neutral" matter wrt other charges.
|
| Faraday rotation and optical tweezers come to mind.

How so? Heck, playing with magnets and trying to put two north poles
together comes to mind for me. Direct experimental evidence that the M
of EM can and does severely curve spacetime that anyone can plainly see
for theirself. Rubbing a balloon on your head and sticking it to the
wall defies gravity. It is a way way stronger spacetime curvature
effect. No doubt about it in my mind.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| | This reply is to Sue as well.
| |
| | Jay R. Yablon wrote:
| | Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
| | "Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
| | action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
| | consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.
| |
| | Recall
| |
| | PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE
| |
| | is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM
and
| | GR.
| |
| | To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
| | temperature when one of those are changed the paper
| | suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
| | Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
| | the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".
| |
| | Hi Ken:
| |
| | Please explain as clearly as possible what you are seeing
here. I
| would
| | agree that in principle, matter must exchange energy with the
| gravitational
| | field in discrete "packets" not continuously. Planck's delta
E =
| n h-bar
| | frequency.
| |
| | But, you seem to think that this quantization actually emerges
out
| of the
| | "Principle of Equilibrium" and might be cranked out of the
| equations already
| | in the paper. How?
| |
| | Because I replied by email to Jay I'll post this for Sue and
all.
| |
| | Jay has these equations,
| |
| | k_v = K,v = 0 (k=kappa).
| |
| | K=sqrt(-g) E.B = scalar.
| |
| | I think Jay and I agree to the above.
| |
| | Here's what Tucker further argues,
| |
| | Use "$" for an integral and get,
| |
| | $ K,v dx^v = $ dK = K = $ k_v dx^v ,
| |
| | proving the constant of integration of $ k_v dx^v = K.
| |
| | Is that agreeable?
| |
| | Ok then, let 2 distinct geodesics "A" and "B" exist,
| |
| | k_v = k(A)_v - k(B)_v
| |
| | A
| | $ k_v dx^v = K as a minimum
| | B
| |
| | K appears as the quantized input (difference) to move from
| | one geodesic to another. For example going from geodesic
| | A=B=C needs 2K etc... nK, n = integer.
| |
| | It would be fantastic if these results can self-quantize the
| energy
| | exchanges between matter and gravitational field.
| | Jay.
| |
| | Well Tucker reads that in,
| |
| | k_v = K,v = 0
| |
| | as his interpretation. Physically a particle in freefall
| | moving along geodesic "A" according to k(A)_v =0
| | is struck by a photon that varies it's geodesic by a
| | quantized amount, (discontinuous quantity), I find to
| | be K, resulting in a new geodesic k(B)_v.
| |
| | There is precedent. Planck's invariant constant "h" is
| | in relative units, (ergs x seconds).
| |
| | So I suggest (conjecture) the constant
| |
| | K=sqrt(-g) E.B
| |
| | (is on a similiar footing as Planck's "h") , which I currently
| | interperate as an "invariant constant of energy density".
| | Regards
| | Ken S. Tucker
| |
| | OK. KenST. Your method seeks to produce standard atomic
| | quanta. I don't see the mechanism which I described as capable
| | of that. Your method may be useful where you are focused on
| | sub atomic structure but I will be watching with interest how
| | it deals with long-range electrically neutral forces.
|
| Key words; "long-range electrically neutral". How do we know that
is
| true to the level of gravity ~ 10^-42? We simply don't have the
| experimental capability to see if an object really is truely
| electrically neutral. But what I think is more important is putting
EM
| in the same framework as GR. Spacetime is curved or "tilted" way
more
| by EM than by "neutral" matter wrt other charges. Very easy to
imagine
| this with the quantum "vacuum" as a medium as Volovik proposes.
More
| difficult to make it all work out mathematically.
|
| OOps. Sorry for empty post. (some say all mine are) )

Thanks for not just giving a bunch of quotes with no comments of your
own explaining what you are quoting. ;-) hint, hint

I made up for it below. )
All my friends are going to hell so I am doing
my best to stick with the gang.


| I'll have to respond to Tensor-Tucker separately after I decrypt
| his post.
|
| You are experssing a PoV that KenST caused me to doubt when
| he pointed out how London forces operate. Your argurment about
| measurement limitations in comparing Coulomb vs. gravitaional forces
| cuts both ways.

Which "both ways"?
It is no less that the optimist with the half full glass.
One may say the gravitational attraction of a single
charge can't be measured because it so small.
Another may say a charge has no graviational attraction.
Who is right? I don't think we know conclusively.


| You are imbuing a charge with a unique longrange force responsible
| for gravity and inertia. I certainly can't disprove that and it is a
| popular concept.

Not a charge. Charges. It always takes at least two to tango. As we
know, electric charges are repulsive or attractive; the trick to explain
in that kind of a scenario is why "neutral" matter always seems to
cancel out the replusive part and leave a very slight attractive part.
This would also mean that maybe the electric charge of an electron is
not exactly oppositely the same as that of a proton's.
Yes. That is more correct. A pluralian slip on my part. When we think
we are measuring a single charge, we are probably measuring
pairs swapping partners.

| I am considering that gravity is only operative for macro atomic
| ensembles.

Well, that is how particle physics deals with gravity so far. You are
not alone. ;-)
That is just because the accelerator labs don't want to get their
pretty pipe dirty by smashing a ferrite loopstick to see how big
photons are put together. )

| But I agree "more important is putting EM in the same
| framework as GR."
|
| One or the the other paradigms has to bend a bit for that to
| happen.

We are already beginning to investigate a Super-GR concept. For me, the
answer has to be Super-GR because I believe that spinors are more
fundamental than tensors. Two similar but opposite spinors can make a
tensor.
Interesting. I am guilty of getting too sidetracked by
the rail conductor's watch so I would certainly qualify
as one who Jay would accuse of not learning all I can
from atomic structure.


| Where you say:
| Spacetime is curved or "tilted" way more by EM than by
| "neutral" matter wrt other charges.
|
| Faraday rotation and optical tweezers come to mind.

How so? Heck, playing with magnets and trying to put two north poles
together comes to mind for me.
We don't need space-time to show that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node26.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...agIntThumb.jpg
from:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...tics/index.htm

There is no momentum exchange between the magnets.
Time is incidental.

Direct experimental evidence that the M
of EM can and does severely curve spacetime that anyone can plainly see
for theirself. Rubbing a balloon on your head and sticking it to the
wall defies gravity. It is a way way stronger spacetime curvature
effect. No doubt about it in my mind.

See above URLs
Time doesn't seem to be a factor. Only the
superposition of charge centers.
I am glad you clarified that before I got a crick in my neck trying
to visualize your statement in 4(d+t) CS. Thanks )

Sue...

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | "Sue..." wrote in message
| | oups.com...

[time to snip I suppose]

| | | OK. KenST. Your method seeks to produce standard atomic
| | | quanta. I don't see the mechanism which I described as capable
| | | of that. Your method may be useful where you are focused on
| | | sub atomic structure but I will be watching with interest how
| | | it deals with long-range electrically neutral forces.
| |
| | Key words; "long-range electrically neutral". How do we know
that
| is
| | true to the level of gravity ~ 10^-42? We simply don't have the
| | experimental capability to see if an object really is truely
| | electrically neutral. But what I think is more important is
putting
| EM
| | in the same framework as GR. Spacetime is curved or "tilted"
way
| more
| | by EM than by "neutral" matter wrt other charges. Very easy to
| imagine
| | this with the quantum "vacuum" as a medium as Volovik proposes.
| More
| | difficult to make it all work out mathematically.
| |
| | OOps. Sorry for empty post. (some say all mine are) )
|
| Thanks for not just giving a bunch of quotes with no comments of
your
| own explaining what you are quoting. ;-) hint, hint
|
| I made up for it below. )
| All my friends are going to hell so I am doing
| my best to stick with the gang.

You'll probably see some of my old friends there (back here). ;-) I am
trying to do my best to get to the next higher plane of existence. I
figure if you don't make it to the next level, you have to come back to
this level again. Must be hard because there seems to be more and more
comin' back. LOL! Well, I guess we would be gettin' some from down
below also.

| | I'll have to respond to Tensor-Tucker separately after I decrypt
| | his post.
| |
| | You are experssing a PoV that KenST caused me to doubt when
| | he pointed out how London forces operate. Your argurment about
| | measurement limitations in comparing Coulomb vs. gravitaional
forces
| | cuts both ways.
|
| Which "both ways"?

| It is no less that the optimist with the half full glass.
| One may say the gravitational attraction of a single
| charge can't be measured because it so small.
| Another may say a charge has no graviational attraction.
| Who is right? I don't think we know conclusively.

Can't be measured because it is too small "relative" to the electric
charge forces. Surely we could have a charged object massive enough to
try but any gravitational effect would always be swamped out by the EM
forces. Any charged object has mass so it will always have
gravitational attraction to another mass.

| | You are imbuing a charge with a unique longrange force responsible
| | for gravity and inertia. I certainly can't disprove that and it
is a
| | popular concept.
|
| Not a charge. Charges. It always takes at least two to tango. As
we
| know, electric charges are repulsive or attractive; the trick to
explain
| in that kind of a scenario is why "neutral" matter always seems to
| cancel out the replusive part and leave a very slight attractive
part.
| This would also mean that maybe the electric charge of an electron
is
| not exactly oppositely the same as that of a proton's.

| Yes. That is more correct. A pluralian slip on my part. When we think
| we are measuring a single charge, we are probably measuring
| pairs swapping partners.

Well, we do know that a proton is not like an electron. So it stands to
reason that maybe, just maybe their charges don't cancel completely out.
IOW, what we think is a neutral hydrogen atom is still "tilting"
spacetime slightly but always attractively for some reason. That is the
big mystery. And Ken has his GR charge couple concept to try to explain
that.

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

| | I am considering that gravity is only operative for macro atomic
| | ensembles.
|
| Well, that is how particle physics deals with gravity so far. You
are
| not alone. ;-)

| That is just because the accelerator labs don't want to get their
| pretty pipe dirty by smashing a ferrite loopstick to see how big
| photons are put together. )

Now you bein' silly. LOL!

| | But I agree "more important is putting EM in the same
| | framework as GR."
| |
| | One or the the other paradigms has to bend a bit for that to
| | happen.
|
| We are already beginning to investigate a Super-GR concept. For me,
the
| answer has to be Super-GR because I believe that spinors are more
| fundamental than tensors. Two similar but opposite spinors can make
a
| tensor.

| Interesting. I am guilty of getting too sidetracked by
| the rail conductor's watch so I would certainly qualify
| as one who Jay would accuse of not learning all I can
| from atomic structure.

Get Weinberg's "The Quantum Theory of Fields" Vol III "Supersymmetry"
and read Chapter 31 "Supergravity".

| | Where you say:
| | Spacetime is curved or "tilted" way more by EM than by
| | "neutral" matter wrt other charges.
| |
| | Faraday rotation and optical tweezers come to mind.
|
| How so? Heck, playing with magnets and trying to put two north
poles
| together comes to mind for me.

| We don't need space-time to show that.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node26.html
|
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...agIntThumb.jpg
| from:
|
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...tics/index.htm
|
| There is no momentum exchange between the magnets.
| Time is incidental.

Time is incidental when I am trying to get the two north poles of
magnets together. ;-) It truely takes a dual spacetime (DS) concept to
fully understand photons since the solutions have scalar and
longitudinal photons in addition to transverse photons that we know an
love. Not to mention the "ghost" states. Don't know if you have read
our QVC paper at the link in the sig., but we have a solution for
photons where the wavefunction maps out an energy density volume. And
this seems to be a reasonable conclusion because if you have a
"traveling" EM energy density volume and take it down to where it is
described by photons (quantized), you ought to have a "chunk" of energy
density volume of the original. But photons can't have any longitudinal
"length" in our spacetime so this "volume" must be partly in the other
spacetime of the DS scenario. Enter the duality that Jay uses. I
interpret that as someone in the other spacetime looking at our
spacetime. The E and B fields are all interchanged. Pretty wild, huh?

| Direct experimental evidence that the M
| of EM can and does severely curve spacetime that anyone can plainly
see
| for theirself. Rubbing a balloon on your head and sticking it to
the
| wall defies gravity. It is a way way stronger spacetime curvature
| effect. No doubt about it in my mind.
|
| See above URLs
| Time doesn't seem to be a factor. Only the
| superposition of charge centers.
| I am glad you clarified that before I got a crick in my neck trying
| to visualize your statement in 4(d+t) CS. Thanks )

Time is always a factor. Can't stop that bugger unless you work in
Hollywood like me. ;-) Look at this way; we figure there was some kind
of big bang type of event but the exact details are most likely sketchy.
So... we have an event horizon that "spread outs". That event horizon
has to be a boundary between dual spacetimes that physically moves at c.
We can never see what is on the other side unless we could go faster
than c. But when we go smaller and smaller in size it is equivalent to
greater and greater energy, and we are going to see stuff on the event
horizon from the other spacetime. It is going to appear two dimensional
plus time. Or 3D. Well, Volovik speaks of the quantum vacuum as a
"cold quantum liquid" so it doesn't seem to be in our spacetime, so it
must be in the other one on the other side of the event horizon mostly
hidden from us macroscopically. But fermions (spinors) can "see" it and
are interacting with it all the time.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | "Sue..." wrote in message
| | oups.com...

[time to snip I suppose]

| | | OK. KenST. Your method seeks to produce standard atomic
| | | quanta. I don't see the mechanism which I described as capable
| | | of that. Your method may be useful where you are focused on
| | | sub atomic structure but I will be watching with interest how
| | | it deals with long-range electrically neutral forces.
| |
| | Key words; "long-range electrically neutral". How do we know
that
| is
| | true to the level of gravity ~ 10^-42? We simply don't have the
| | experimental capability to see if an object really is truely
| | electrically neutral. But what I think is more important is
putting
| EM
| | in the same framework as GR. Spacetime is curved or "tilted"
way
| more
| | by EM than by "neutral" matter wrt other charges. Very easy to
| imagine
| | this with the quantum "vacuum" as a medium as Volovik proposes.
| More
| | difficult to make it all work out mathematically.
| |
| | OOps. Sorry for empty post. (some say all mine are) )
|
| Thanks for not just giving a bunch of quotes with no comments of
your
| own explaining what you are quoting. ;-) hint, hint
|
| I made up for it below. )
| All my friends are going to hell so I am doing
| my best to stick with the gang.

You'll probably see some of my old friends there (back here). ;-) I am
trying to do my best to get to the next higher plane of existence. I
figure if you don't make it to the next level, you have to come back to
this level again. Must be hard because there seems to be more and more
comin' back. LOL! Well, I guess we would be gettin' some from down
below also.

| | I'll have to respond to Tensor-Tucker separately after I decrypt
| | his post.
| |
| | You are experssing a PoV that KenST caused me to doubt when
| | he pointed out how London forces operate. Your argurment about
| | measurement limitations in comparing Coulomb vs. gravitaional
forces
| | cuts both ways.
|
| Which "both ways"?

| It is no less that the optimist with the half full glass.
| One may say the gravitational attraction of a single
| charge can't be measured because it so small.
| Another may say a charge has no graviational attraction.
| Who is right? I don't think we know conclusively.

Can't be measured because it is too small "relative" to the electric
charge forces. Surely we could have a charged object massive enough to
try but any gravitational effect would always be swamped out by the EM
forces. Any charged object has mass so it will always have
gravitational attraction to another mass.

If there is any truth to mass/energy equivalence, we just annihilate
the pair. The resultant spectra is easily measured.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...eneration.html

| | You are imbuing a charge with a unique longrange force responsible
| | for gravity and inertia. I certainly can't disprove that and it
is a
| | popular concept.
|
| Not a charge. Charges. It always takes at least two to tango. As
we
| know, electric charges are repulsive or attractive; the trick to
explain
| in that kind of a scenario is why "neutral" matter always seems to
| cancel out the replusive part and leave a very slight attractive
part.
| This would also mean that maybe the electric charge of an electron
is
| not exactly oppositely the same as that of a proton's.

| Yes. That is more correct. A pluralian slip on my part. When we think
| we are measuring a single charge, we are probably measuring
| pairs swapping partners.

Well, we do know that a proton is not like an electron. So it stands to
reason that maybe, just maybe their charges don't cancel completely out.
IOW, what we think is a neutral hydrogen atom is still "tilting"
spacetime slightly but always attractively for some reason. That is the
big mystery. And Ken has his GR charge couple concept to try to explain
that.
Yes... ?inside? the composite particle the delima of what can
share a space and when, is bound up with the energy that
sustains the particle's existence so the space-time CS is
a convenient way to generate conservative equations... whether
they are or not.

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

Yeah... I couldn't get that to work as gravitational mechanism but
it seems valid for the subatomic realm.


| | I am considering that gravity is only operative for macro atomic
| | ensembles.
|
| Well, that is how particle physics deals with gravity so far. You
are
| not alone. ;-)

| That is just because the accelerator labs don't want to get their
| pretty pipe dirty by smashing a ferrite loopstick to see how big
| photons are put together. )

Now you bein' silly. LOL!

| | But I agree "more important is putting EM in the same
| | framework as GR."
| |
| | One or the the other paradigms has to bend a bit for that to
| | happen.
|
| We are already beginning to investigate a Super-GR concept. For me,
the
| answer has to be Super-GR because I believe that spinors are more
| fundamental than tensors. Two similar but opposite spinors can make
a
| tensor.

| Interesting. I am guilty of getting too sidetracked by
| the rail conductor's watch so I would certainly qualify
| as one who Jay would accuse of not learning all I can
| from atomic structure.

Get Weinberg's "The Quantum Theory of Fields" Vol III "Supersymmetry"
and read Chapter 31 "Supergravity".

Oh! Is that where KenST learned that funny notation? )
Again... I am taking the road less traveled.
The Higgs report is final and posted as
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010338
http://fnth37.fnal.gov/susy.html


| | Where you say:
| | Spacetime is curved or "tilted" way more by EM than by
| | "neutral" matter wrt other charges.
| |
| | Faraday rotation and optical tweezers come to mind.
|
| How so? Heck, playing with magnets and trying to put two north
poles
| together comes to mind for me.

| We don't need space-time to show that.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node26.html
|
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...agIntThumb.jpg
| from:
|
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...tics/index.htm
|
| There is no momentum exchange between the magnets.
| Time is incidental.

Time is incidental when I am trying to get the two north poles of
magnets together. ;-)
Trying? You are moving the goalposts.
So, we have come full circle in our investigation of
magnetic fields. Note that the simple result (345) can
only be obtained from the Biot-Savart law after some
non-trivial algebra. Examination of more complicated
current distributions using this law invariably leads to
lengthy, involved, and extremely unpleasant calculations'.
(triple integrals)

Nature has no motive to shield us from
'lengthy, involved, and extremely unpleasant calculations.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_integral

=================
It truely takes a dual spacetime (DS) concept to
fully understand photons since the solutions have scalar and
longitudinal photons in addition to transverse photons that we know an
love. Not to mention the "ghost" states. Don't know if you have read
our QVC paper at the link in the sig., but we have a solution for
photons where the wavefunction maps out an energy density volume. And
this seems to be a reasonable conclusion because if you have a
"traveling" EM energy density volume and take it down to where it is
described by photons (quantized), you ought to have a "chunk" of energy
density volume of the original. But photons can't have any longitudinal
"length" in our spacetime so this "volume" must be partly in the other
spacetime of the DS scenario. Enter the duality that Jay uses. I
interpret that as someone in the other spacetime looking at our
spacetime. The E and B fields are all interchanged. Pretty wild, huh?
Too wild... )
If you don't want to understand 'photons' then don't invent them. )


Photons don't make a very good propagation model so unless we have
an ultra violet catastrophe, I prefer avoiding them for long paths.


| Direct experimental evidence that the M
| of EM can and does severely curve spacetime that anyone can plainly
see
| for theirself. Rubbing a balloon on your head and sticking it to
the
| wall defies gravity. It is a way way stronger spacetime curvature
| effect. No doubt about it in my mind.
|
| See above URLs
| Time doesn't seem to be a factor. Only the
| superposition of charge centers.
| I am glad you clarified that before I got a crick in my neck trying
| to visualize your statement in 4(d+t) CS. Thanks )

Time is always a factor. Can't stop that bugger unless you work in
Hollywood like me. ;-) Look at this way; we figure there was some kind
of big bang type of event but the exact details are most likely sketchy.
So... we have an event horizon that "spread outs". That event horizon
has to be a boundary between dual spacetimes that physically moves at c.
We can never see what is on the other side unless we could go faster
than c. But when we go smaller and smaller in size it is equivalent to
greater and greater energy, and we are going to see stuff on the event
horizon from the other spacetime. It is going to appear two dimensional
plus time. Or 3D. Well, Volovik speaks of the quantum vacuum as a
"cold quantum liquid" so it doesn't seem to be in our spacetime, so it
must be in the other one on the other side of the event horizon mostly
hidden from us macroscopically. But fermions (spinors) can "see" it and
are interacting with it all the time.

I just showed you timeless magnetism. ... LOL
Yes... the time dependant Maxwell equations are easier.
But retarded potential is not a desirable
feature on the rail conductor's watch. It is a nasty artifact.

Sue...


FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

"FrediFizzx" wrote in news:3tnrf8Fti2geU1
@individual.net:

Not a charge. Charges. It always takes at least two to tango. As we
know, electric charges are repulsive or attractive; the trick to explain
in that kind of a scenario is why "neutral" matter always seems to
cancel out the replusive part and leave a very slight attractive part.
This would also mean that maybe the electric charge of an electron is
not exactly oppositely the same as that of a proton's.

Let us assume for the moment that the charges ARE exactly equal.

Perhaps the fact that the charges are NOT in the exact same location, in
fact that the protons are confined to a small volume while the electrons
are allowed to roam quite a bit further could give us the 'handle' to use
the instantanious charge imbalances. In time, the imbalance in freedom of
movement might give us a 'force' that is always attractive.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

it's - its

theirself - themselves

spectra is - spectra are
independant - independent
loosing - losing
loosing - losing

instantanious - instantaneous

manuveur - manœuvre
existance - existence

illiterate retarded cascading scum

Quanta are discrete as molar harmonics of Planckian dimensions, and
don't you forget it.

Okkum - Ockham
, that is - --that is,
theories," - theories"--

Do you talk about falling neutrons?

Hi Jay,

I took a quick amateur look on your paper and there was couple
points which I noticed although I don't master tensor mathematics
as well as you. Please take a look my comments (questions) below.

Best Regards,

Hannu

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?

FrediFizzx

Hi Fred:

The paper starts by recognizing that the conservation of total energy
(matter plus gravitation) for an electromagnetic field in General Relativity
(GR) is predicated on Maxwell's magnetic (second) equation = 0. This in

I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?
How you have defined for example total gavitational energy in your
paper ?

turn is predicated on an Abelian relationship between fields and potentials.
If one wishes to be able to consider non-Abelian field theories (such as
weak and strong interactions) in a GR context, then we must find a way to
free energy conservation from its dependence on Abelian fields. That is, we
need a way to conserve energy that works for non-Abelian as well as Abelian
fields.

To do this, we end up using certain mathematical identities that make use of
the duality formalism pioneered by Reinich and Wheeler based on Levi-Civita
formalism. This formalism inherently allows for magnetic monopoles,
although the ideas presented in THIS paper do not require or exclude
magnetic monopoles. (My earlier papers at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508257 and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509223
directly explore the magnetic monopole question, which to me is the oldest,
still unanswered question in science. Quark confinement is only ~30 years
old, the magnetic monopole question has this beat by a century.) These
mathematical identities, when used to ensure energy conservation for both
Abelian and non-Abelian fields, lead to a new energy tensor which resembles
the Maxwell tensor, but has a non-zero trace that can give rise to rest
mass. (My equation (2.23), on reflection, should be written in terms of
proper density, because it is not possible to transform the T^0k, T^jk=0
components to zero because of the ~g^uv proportionality that is discussed at
length in section 3.)

From there, we are able to derive a number of energy tensors which apply
equally to Abelian and non-Abelian interactions, and which have non-zero
trace energy (Tensor (3.25) is important to explore, because this tensor CAN
be put into a rest frame, i.e., T^0k, T^jk=0, and seems to derive the energy
out of E^2). And, we come to see that the kappa_v which describe the
exchange of energy between matter and the gravitational field is dependent
on the particular energy tensor one uses, i.e., just as there are a number
of different types of energy tensors which depend on the material phenomenon
being described, so too are there a number of different types of kappa_v and
these are linked to specific energy tensors. This leads to viewing the
Einstein equations as not only second, but also third-order equations in the
metric. This also leads us to understand the T^uv & kappa_v relationship in
terms of principles of equilibrium and disequilibrium which are
gravitationally-based and which also point toward how energy is converted
from one form to another.

But, what may be most significant, is that the T^uv and kappa_v for a
diversity of material phenomena ate all constructed out of the SAME field
strength tensors, just in different configurations, so, conversion of energy
from one form to another amounts to a reconfiguration of these fields. And,
since we know already how to treat these fields as quantum wavefunctions, we
can acquire a set of second and third order equations in the spacetime
metric wherein the second and third derivatives of the metric are set equal
to quantum wavefunctions. This suggests that once we can solve these
equations, we will find that the metric at any given point in spacetime is
itself a wavefunction with an expectation value, rather than a classical
object which has a definitive value. Thus, we quantize gravitation by
feeding into gravitation, wavefunctions derived from what we already known
from QED and QCD and QWD (weak interaction), which sets second and third
order constraint on the metric and allows quantum mechanics to be considered
in a non-linear gravitational context.

My main postulate -- which I will expand on in later reply to Dr. Photon, is
that we build new physics very conservatively, from what works. In my view,
this means three ingredients: Maxwell's electrodynamics, General Relativity,
and Yang Mills / non-Abelian gauge theory. Nothing else unless compelled.

The fourth ingredient I use liberally, is electric / magnetic duality, which
is perhaps less traditional. Duality can be seen both as a "passive
formalism" and an "active symmetry." That is, as a mathematical
proposition, one can use the duality formalism to represent known phenomenon
in different mathematical notation (i.e., P^u = *F^tu_t to represent a
magnetic monopole current and P^u = *F^tu_t = 0 to represent the second
Maxwell equation for vanishing magnetic monopoles), and one can make use of
certain identities (such as (2.1) through (2.5) here) which utilize this
formalism, without making any suppositions one way or the other about the
existence or non-existence of magnetic or chromomagnetic monopoles. That is
how duality is used, passively, in this paper. Additionally, one can use
duality actively as a symmetry principle, to pursue questions such as "why
do we not seem to observe magnetic monopoles in nature?" and "if magnetic
monopoles do exist, how do they hide at low energies?" This is what I do in
my other two papers, to arrive at the view that magnetic monopoles can be
used to explain .003 out of the .005 NuTeV anomaly, and that the other .002
is accounted for with weak magnetic monopoles (which some have called the
Z').

So, that's the basic overview. I'll say more as I can squeeze out some time
to respond to other posts.

I notice end of your paper the group of equations which sems to have
solution same as Resissner-Nordstrom solution as a line element
( metric of charged black hole), if I looked right ?

Serious Problems with this Reisnerr-Nordstrom solution are that with
time like geodesic it is possible to avoid hitting the singularity
and also that if black hole would have charge then the whole space
would be also charged too which is impossible ?




Best to all,

Jay.

Hi Hannu, see inline:


I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?
How you have defined for example total gavitational energy in your
paper ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically. That is, T^uv_;u must
be set to a combination of fields which is identically equal to zero, in all
situations, for Abelian and non-Abelian interactions alike.


I notice end of your paper the group of equations which sems to have
solution same as Resissner-Nordstrom solution as a line element
( metric of charged black hole), if I looked right ?

Serious Problems with this Reisnerr-Nordstrom solution are that with
time like geodesic it is possible to avoid hitting the singularity
and also that if black hole would have charge then the whole space
would be also charged too which is impossible ?


Well, Hannu, you are right to notice the similarities because I am using the
Schwarzschild solution. But, this is not intended as a real-world solution,
but just as an example to give people a concrete idea of what I am talking
about when I say that one can quantize gravity by feeding quantum mechanical
wavefunctions for fields and currents directly into the Einstein equations
at second and third differential order in the spacetime metric g_uv, and
then solving for G_uv to arrive at a metric wavefunction fully grounded in
empirical knowledge from QED and QCD and QWeakD.

Jay.