SciPhysicsForums.com

by **Ben6993** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:44 pm

More thoughts following my recent two posts wrt Jay's 28-page paper. [Not 17 pages as I previously wrote.]

If time dilation caused by electric charges really is a new finding/proof why not give it a name. Say 'especial relativity' [for Electrical special relativity]?

GR covers the time dilation caused by mass, SR {Susskind said no-one uses the acronym SR for special relativity!} covers the time dilation effects of velocity, and ER covers the time dilation and time contraction effects of Q.

Just as I was earlier confused about what was PE and KE in the eight combinations of M, V and Q
(see my posts in the vicinity of this onehttp://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=266&start=40#p6580)
I am now confused as to how to assign the eight combinations of M, V and Q into appropriate categories of GR, SR and the new ER.
GR normally includes everything(?), so I think ER must already be included in GR, at least by default. Also it seems to me that ER is acting more like GR than SR, as ER is independent of velocity. Also it depends on a charge Q just as GR depends on mass M [plus mass/energy equivalences.] Yet Jay says that [maybe in its mathematical derivation?] ER seems to parallel SR.
............

{Not in the paper, I think} What happens to ER time dilation/contraction near zero Temperature [0T]?
There exist fractional electrical charges at 0T which presumably means that an observer sees the fractional charges with much finer ER dilations/contractions than would be possible if the charges were not fractional. Maybe that is a useful feature at 0T where V is small and space is at a premium? Finer time dilations also means finer space contractions at 0T. The ER effect, as I tenuously understand it, keeps measurements of q/m constant by dilating/contracting measurements in the metric. What happens to the constant q/m for fractional charges at 0T?
..............

And referring to 0T made me think of Jay's magnetic monopoles. For the fractional charges at 0T, do we need MR (magnetic relativity) corresponding to the ER?

by **Ben6993** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:49 am

More thoughts on my post above, to try to let me find a way to see the dilation/contraction directions simply.

Give Alice, Bob and Charlie small masses, in addition to their electric charges. (NB IMO, an elementary particle with electric charge must have mass anyway.)

Alice, Bob and Charlie all see each other as slowed down due to their masses.
Give A, B and C small velocities and they all see each other sightly more slowed down than before, due to mass & velocity.
Then when you add the effects of the electric charges, Alice and Bob are electrically attracted to one another. An attraction could be misinterpreted (eg if A and B did not know about the charges) as A and B having heavier masses as inferred from their increased attraction. Heavier pseudo-masses implies A and B see each other as even more slowed down. That is consistent with opposite charges leading to time dilation, as noted on page 7 of the 17-page paper and referred to in my post above. Presumably, this aspect is not controversial.

by **Ben6993** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:36 pm

A question about page 7 of Jay's 17-page paper: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Classical Electrodynamics (revised June 2016).

If (infinitesimal) Bob and Charlie are each a -ve electrical charge, while Alice is a +ve electrical charge. And given weak fields and low speeds.

Am I correct in interpreting that:
Alice sees Bob slowed down,
Alice sees Charlie slowed down,
Bob sees Alice slowed down,
Bob sees Charlie speeded up,
Charlie sees Alice slowed down, and
Charlie sees Bob speeded up?

Just thinking about consistency in this three-body problem. Would there be a more complicated formula for three bodies or, eg, an iterated solution or...?

by **Ben6993** » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:57 pm

On Wed Jun 29 2016, Ben6993 wrote

Jay might be pleased that at long last I am currently half way into Susskind's SR course and I will tackle GR immediately after that...

I have today finished the General Relativity online course by Susskind. I realise that the two courses are only introductions, what Susskind calls "the theoretical minimum" mathematical treatment. But maybe I will be able understand more when reading papers now. And also I can get back to my preon model. I had been putting off the GR course for years, but finally made it... In fact, I bought Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler in about 1973 but as I was employed as a researcher in another field, I never found time to study it. Also daunted by its weight and complexity. Susskind's course was very clearly explained, though.

by **Yablon** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:01 am

fredneto wrote:Hello
It seems to me that your work might be related to the phenomenological description of mass
in terms of magnetodynamic energies in my paper
vixra: 1607.0482v2

There is a clear connection between topology and magnetism underneath those results.
Rgds
Osvaldo Schilling

Thank you Osvaldo:
To make this easier for people (including me) to obtain I have added a link: http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0482.
Best,
Jay

by **fredneto** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:41 am

Hello
It seems to me that your work might be related to the phenomenological description of mass
in terms of magnetodynamic energies in my paper
vixra: 1607.0482v2

There is a clear connection between topology and magnetism underneath those results.
Rgds
Osvaldo Schilling

by **Ben6993** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:19 am

In my above posts there are really two main points.

1. Thanks to Jay's advice on using E/cc to get an equivalent mass term from any sort of energy, I can derive eqn. 2.10 [maybe?] "out of the blue" as Jay mentioned in passing somewhere on page 1 of this thread. But not competely out of the blue as it needs a venn diagram [with complete crossing of three main effects: V, M and Q] to guide what terms are necessary, plus assumed correctness of mcc as the energy of (rest) mass; E/cc for equivalent mass; GMm/r for gravitational PE; kQq/r for coulomb PE. All the other energies in the partitions of the venn diagram follow readily from these.

2. The first line of eqn. 2.10 in which brackets are not expanded makes it clear that the
"gravitational energy of the kinetic energy of the coulomb energy" (MVQ in my terminology) should equal
"the kinetic energy of the gravitational energy of the Coulomb energy" (VMQ in my terminology).
as MVQ must equal VMQ because the ordering is commutative.But I am quite prepared to accept that MVQ may be an inadmissable way of looking at things, even though the MVQ calculation does give the same answer as the VMQ calculation. Similarly any calculation using an amended q value is probably too silly.

Jay might be pleased that at long last I am currently half way into Susskind's SR course and I will tackle GR immediately after that. I have previously encountered SR formulae in Susskind's other courses eg QM, QFT, Standard Model, etc and encountered GR formulae in his string theory and cosmology courses but it will be good to cover the topics more properly. Spurred on by looking at Eqn. 2.10, I have now read the first nine pages of Jay's 28-page-paper as best I can.

by **Ben6993** » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:09 am

I need to make a correction to my previous post in which I referred to the eight terms in eqn 2.10 as:
'mass', KE, grav, KE, grav, KE, grav and KE in sequence.
The third term is Coulomb PE, not gravitational PE.

This led me to being interested in the ordering of effects, and wondering if orders were important.
So in total we really have the following partitions of my venn diagram crossed effects:
'Mass', M (= Gravitation), V, Q, VQ, QV, MV, VM, QM, MQ, MVQ, MQV, QVM,QMV, VQM, VMQ
I looked first at the VMQ etc. where all three main effects are interacting.
Eqn 2.10 presents this term as a KE term: "the kinetic energy of the gravitational energy of the Coulomb energy".
Well, that is fine as it is 0.5 m' vv where m'= {GMkQq/rrcc}/cc.

But I then thought of the gravitational energy of the kinetic energy of the coulomb energy = MVQ, which is a PE.
This is also fine and gives the same expression: [GM/r]*[{kQqvv/2ccr}/cc]

Which then led me to QVM, which is a silly expression as q is always constant. [I didn't really follow earlier discussions on this website wrt varability of q.]
QVM = [kQ/r]*[new expression for q based on the kinetic energy of the gravitational energy]
and if this needs to lead to the same expression as for VMQ and MVQ then the 'new expression for q would be q' = qGMvv/2ccccr

As V is not a physical entity on the same basis as M and Q, then V should never appear last in an expression so, for example, MQV and QMV are not applicable. The remaining terms are:
'Mass', M (= Gravitation), V, Q, VQ, VM, QM, MQ, MVQ, QVM, VQM, VMQ

Next is VQM, the KE of the coulomb PE of the gravitational mass:
this is 0.5 [new expression for mass derived from QM]*vv.
I don't have an expression for QM so I will stop there. (There is an expression though for MQ which is term 7.)

Does MQ need to be the same expression as for QM?
If so then GMkQq/ccrr needs to equal [kQ/r]*[new expression for q]
and if so, then QM=[kQ/r]*[qGM/ccr] = coulomb PE of the gravitational PE; where q' = new expression for q = qGM/ccr

Sorry about all this. I was just trying to look for completeness of terms wrt my venn diagram.

by **Ben6993** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:15 pm

Hi Jay

Thanks for the advice about dividing by cc to get the mass equivalents ... which means I can now work out eqn. 2.10 in a few minutes on the back of an envelope whenever I need it!

First start with the completely crossed M x V x Q venn diagram to ensure that all seven terms are present. Then realise that mcc is a special case as its energy is frame independent, so there are eight terms not seven.

1: M (mass) ..... mcc= the frame-independent mass-energy. (The former rest mass energy.)
2: V(velocity) ..... KE = mvv/2
3: Q ..... coulomb potential energy = kQq/r
4: VxQ ..... [coulomb PE/cc]*0.5*vv = kQqvv/2rcc
5. M (gravitational) ..... gravitational PE = GMm/r
6: M (grav.) xV ..... [grav PE/cc]*0.5*vv = GMmvv/2rcc
7: M (grav.) xQ ..... Grav PE {with 'coulomb PE/cc' replacing m} = [GM/r]*[kQq/rcc] = GMkQq/rrcc
8: M (grav.) xVxQ ..... KE with (Term 7 mass used instead of m) = 0.5[{GMkQq/rrcc}/cc]*vv = 0.5GMkQqvv/rrcccc

Another pattern is that terms 1 to 8 go: 'mass', KE. grav, KE, grav, KE, grav and KE in sequence. The even number terms all involve the V main factor, so that is easy for me to remember that they give KE.

Best wishes

by **thray** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:30 am

Yablon wrote:
thray wrote:In making time and kinetic energy equivalent, Jay suggests that a least unit of spacetime is dependent on dilation, and therefore no such least unit exists in compressed matter. There is, in other words, no boundary between classical and quantum physics.

I like it.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Dirac once said the his equation was "more intelligent than its author." And look at all we know about Einstein's equation in 2016 that neither Einstein nor anybody else had a clue about in 1916.

I like the things you are pointing out about my relativistic time / energy relations that I had not seen as clearly as you are seeing them. Not only is that helpful to me, but more importantly this is fundamental to how the scientific enterprise advances. Equations of nature, once uncovered, truly do take on a life of their own totally independently of their authors. It is extremely satisfying to an author to see others understand equations better than the author him or her self; it is like watching your child grow to become an independent adult and achieve things that his or her parent never would have dreamed about.

Best,

Jay

Jay,

I feel like we're on the leading edge of great breakthrough. Too long have we waited for new mathematics to free us of this existential trap of a spaceless probabilism. I think your equation 2.10 does that.

Speaking of Dirac, his idea of 'quantum trajectories' has found new traction: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_and_Back

And this seems fully in accord with time dilation formulated as kinetic energy potential.

All best!

Tom

by **Yablon** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:40 pm

thray wrote:In making time and kinetic energy equivalent, Jay suggests that a least unit of spacetime is dependent on dilation, and therefore no such least unit exists in compressed matter. There is, in other words, no boundary between classical and quantum physics.

I like it.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Dirac once said the his equation was "more intelligent than its author." And look at all we know about Einstein's equation in 2016 that neither Einstein nor anybody else had a clue about in 1916.

I like the things you are pointing out about my relativistic time / energy relations that I had not seen as clearly as you are seeing them. Not only is that helpful to me, but more importantly this is fundamental to how the scientific enterprise advances. Equations of nature, once uncovered, truly do take on a life of their own totally independently of their authors. It is extremely satisfying to an author to see others understand equations better than the author him or her self; it is like watching your child grow to become an independent adult and achieve things that his or her parent never would have dreamed about.

Best,

Jay

by **Yablon** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:26 pm

Ben6993 wrote:Hi Jay

I haven't read the latest version of your paper yet. Beyond me at present without serious effort and I have been struggling to get back into the physics mentality (especially the serious effort part) of late.

But I have looked at the pattern of the eight terms in eqn 2.10.
I notice that seven of the terms are a complete crossing of three main effects. Ie take the three main effect as:
-- Mass/gravitation: M
-- Velocity: V
-- Electric charge: Q
Then seven of your terms in eqn 2.10 are
1: M
2: V
3: Q
4: VxQ

6: MxV
7: MxQ
8: MxVxQ

And I think term 5 just joins with term 1 under main effect M?

Hi Ben, that is basically correct in a rough way. Your #5 is really gravitational interaction energy from Newton's law.

But the simplest way to look at this is that you take the energies of gravitational and electromagnetic interaction, then divide them by c^2 to get their mass equivalent. So look closely at the c^2 divisions. Then you do with those mass equivalents what one often does with masses in physics: make them interact gravitationally, and give them motion therefore a kinetic energy.

Best to you also,

Jay

by **thray** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:27 am

Q-reeus wrote:
thray wrote:I for one truly appreciate -- and I fail to see how any relativist cannot appreciate -- the classical implications of your eqn 2.10. What strikes me, too, is the connection with how imaginary curvature may correspond to imaginary time in the Penrose-Hawking formulation. "The alteration of time flow in electrodynamics that we suggest here, is therefore much more akin to the time dilation of special relativity than it is to the gravitational redshifts and blueshifts of general relativity." That in fact, may be Einstein's real "biggest blunder."

Imaginary spacetime curvature is, well, hard to imagine and likely to be a very, very hard sell.
Spectral shifts require a preferred inertial frame.

Only if you are referring to normal SR longitudinal Doppler. Otherwise, how does being placed in an electrostatically charged Faraday cage amount to a preferred frame, as opposed to a particular environment?

A point at infinity maps simultaneously to all points of what we call the universe. This follows from the arithmetic theorem that a point can simultaneously approach any other set of points provided it is far enough away. For a point, this works in n dimensions. Formally stated: At sufficient distance, at least one external point can simultaneously map to a point set of any cardinality.

Does it work for a line?

A point is treated as a line in two-dimension (i.e., complex) analysis. A line may extend to the imaginary part of the complex plane without losing its continuity of curvature, or its identity as a point.

So imaginary spacetime curvature is no less imaginable than imaginary time, and it's mathematically as well founded. In fact, it extends spacetime's metric properties to the complex plane—the point-line duality is verified in two real dimensions by Poncelet’s construction.

At extremes of distance and speed, relativistic effects apply. Quantum jump may stem from these effects: The energy change from ground to excited state is described by James Gleick in a 1986 NYT article: “The new technology creates 'traps’ from electrical fields, allowing an experimenter to isolate individual atoms in a small vacuum chamber. The scientists suspended these atoms in space, damping their motion and thus cooling them to a temperature of a few thousands of a degree above absolute zero. And they energized them with laser light to produce the jump.”

That’s your Faraday cage on steroids.

And the laser stimulation is a point at infinity.

Where ‘the rubber meets the road,’ so to speak, is the simultaneous distribution of energy to every point of the atomic sphere, so that effectively its potential is zero everywhere. Yet to a hypothetical observer inside the sphere – the laser beam is not external incoming; it is internal outgoing.

Thus the jump is communicated at a lower speed to an external observer (experimenter). How does this happen without time dilation?

In making time and kinetic energy equivalent, Jay suggests that a least unit of spacetime is dependent on dilation, and therefore no such least unit exists in compressed matter. There is, in other words, no boundary between classical and quantum physics.

I like it.

Tom

by **Q-reeus** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:58 am

thray wrote:I for one truly appreciate -- and I fail to see how any relativist cannot appreciate -- the classical implications of your eqn 2.10. What strikes me, too, is the connection with how imaginary curvature may correspond to imaginary time in the Penrose-Hawking formulation. "The alteration of time flow in electrodynamics that we suggest here, is therefore much more akin to the time dilation of special relativity than it is to the gravitational redshifts and blueshifts of general relativity." That in fact, may be Einstein's real "biggest blunder."

Imaginary spacetime curvature is, well, hard to imagine and likely to be a very, very hard sell.

Spectral shifts require a preferred inertial frame.

Only if you are referring to normal SR longitudinal Doppler. Otherwise, how does being placed in an electrostatically charged Faraday cage amount to a preferred frame, as opposed to a particular environment?

by **Q-reeus** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:51 am

Yablon wrote:...So I have one very simple question: is there anything that is theoretically or empirically wrong with (2.10), as a classical physics relation?

The final expressions look quite ok, but not imo the intermediate identification with that triple 'time dilation' product. One obvious warning sign is that whereas SR time dilation (transverse Doppler) is associated with increased system energy, the converse is true of gravitational redshift i.e. time dilation. I guess the electrical 'time dilation' has to flip a coin as to which of the other party to side with! Couldn't resist being facetious there.

by **thray** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:42 am

Jay,

I for one truly appreciate -- and I fail to see how any relativist cannot appreciate -- the classical implications of your eqn 2.10. What strikes me, too, is the connection with how imaginary curvature may correspond to imaginary time in the Penrose-Hawking formulation. "The alteration of time flow in electrodynamics that we suggest here, is therefore much more akin to the time dilation of special relativity than it is to the gravitational redshifts and blueshifts of general relativity." That in fact, may be Einstein's real "biggest blunder." :lol:

Spectral shifts require a preferred inertial frame. Could it be that 'no preferred frame' means that the boundary between classical and quantum physics is measure zero? (A failure of quantum computing with entanglement would be a practical proof of this.)

"It may transpire entirely in flat spacetime, and real spacetime curvature only becomes implicated when the energies added to mc reach sufficient magnitude beyond their linear limits shown in (2.10) to curve the nearby spacetime."

That seems a reasonable conclusion!

Tom

by **Ben6993** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:33 am

Hi Jay

I haven't read the latest version of your paper yet. Beyond me at present without serious effort and I have been struggling to get back into the physics mentality (especially the serious effort part) of late.

But I have looked at the pattern of the eight terms in eqn 2.10.
I notice that seven of the terms are a complete crossing of three main effects. Ie take the three main effect as:
-- Mass/gravitation: M
-- Velocity: V
-- Electric charge: Q
Then seven of your terms in eqn 2.10 are
1: M
2: V
3: Q
4: VxQ

6: MxV
7: MxQ
8: MxVxQ

And I think term 5 just joins with term 1 under main effect M?

Best wishes

by **Yablon** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:21 am

thray wrote:What are you confused by, Kevin?

Conceptually, Jay's theory is fully in accord with special relativity. Adding acceleration, and assuming changing time is equivalent to changing kinetic energy in the way that he has described it, meets the requirements of general relativity as well.

Tom

I am also waiting to see what comes back to me after a detailed review. Maybe they will see something that we all are missing. And maybe not.

In the mean time, let me focus the discussion that Tom and Kevin have been having: While I certainly have some thoughts about how this applies to quantum physics and magnetic moments and spectral lines e.g. the Lamb shift that I have posted in this forum, I made a deliberate decision to keep this paper confined to the classical level. So for this paper on its own terms as a classical paper, the key equation is (2.10) in http://vixra.org/pdf/1605.0259v4.pdf. That is the bottom line result of this paper.

So I have one very simple question: is there anything that is theoretically or empirically wrong with (2.10), as a classical physics relation?

Jay

by **thray** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:47 am

What are you confused by, Kevin?

Conceptually, Jay's theory is fully in accord with special relativity. Adding acceleration, and assuming changing time is equivalent to changing kinetic energy in the way that he has described it, meets the requirements of general relativity as well.

Tom

by **Q-reeus** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:28 am

Sorry Tom but you are mixing words there in ways strange to me. So far, Jay can take some comfort in that finding of 'technically competent'. Which I interpret as 'formal maths structure seems ok'. What will count come crunch time is a sober assessment of the conceptual basis. I wish it well but do not expect a great reception from a detailed review by any subsequent journal referee(s).

SciPhysicsForums.com

Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pages

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pages

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa

Re: Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pa