Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics, in six pages

[Q-reeus]

Well Kevin, what if we are already observing this time dilation effect but simply have not attributed it as such?

One calculation I have not put in the paper yet -- and I am debating it -- is this:

Take a Coulomb interaction with , but now take and to be individual electrons . Then with being the Compton wavelength of the electron, the time contraction is:



My present (6.11) says that the canonical momentum is related to the mechanical momentum via , so that for this electron example:



So mechanical momenta are raised into canonical momenta by a factor with includes the "anomalous" of Schwinger that is central to the electron magnetic moment. And this carries forward to a general relation between mechanical and canonical variables....

Jay you surely agree there has to be a general compatibility here. If your theory can explain anomalous magnetic moment but has no answer for absence of clearly predicted atomic spectral shifts, there is a problem!
It's probably better to substitute 'changed inertial mass' for 'time dilation' since the latter is imo simply a somewhat confusing interpretation of the former.
In fact, down to tin tacks, the idea is really an assumed EM analogue of Mach's principle:

Suppose there are in some inertial frame two long parallel wires 1 & 2 each having identical electrostatic charge density per unit length. They are constrained to have constant lateral separation but can freely move along their long axes.
Let 1 accelerate uniformly. Clearly 2 experiences an -dA/dt E field thus force density opposite to the acceleration sense of 1. Which is just the usual electrodynamics applied to a convective ramp current.
If Jay's theory is true, 1 should, in addition to it's self-interaction -dA/dt inductive back-reaction that is a positive inertial effect, likewise experience an -dA/dt E field thus force density opposite to the relative acceleration of 2, as perceived in 1's frame. Which would act opposite to it's own self-interaction inductive inertia. Increase the electrostatic charge on 2 sufficiently, and at some point the clear prediction is 1 will experience negative total inertia thus self-accelerating!

As to the effects being manifested classically as above example or quantum mechanically e.g. electron gyromagnetic ratio or atomic emission spectra, is really moot.

Nature evidently just does not act that way. I have given previous examples where any such effect would be readily observable. The calculations are very easy to do, and one particularly 'interesting' prediction is that for most any diatomic gas, contained within a Faraday cage, charge the latter up to a negative potential somewhat less than 1MV, and the gas will dissociate into a 'cold' plasma. Since the net electronic inertial mass goes to zero and stable orbitals are then impossible. Some pretty wild chemistry is also predicted when bond energies change or simply vanish!

Electrostatic voltages in to the multi-MV range have been commonplace for many decades. That no such 'cold plasma' or exotic chemistry behaviour has been noticed suggests pretty strongly Mach's principle has no EM analogue.

[thray]

Kevin,

Fortuitously, I happen to be reading a paper by Basil Hiley (referenced below) who formally develops a mathematical theory summarized as follows:

"We have a mathematical structure that is basic to both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. At this level there is no basic difference between the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics. The difference arises once one asserts there is a minimum value for this action and equates this value to Planck's constant h. Thus as long as we do not ask questions that are sensitive to the finite nature of this quantum of action (1) the similarity between classical and quantum mechanics is remarkable."

(note 1) 1 This is the origins of Bohr's 'indivisibility of the quantum of action.'

Chapter 11. Information, quantum theory and the brain. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _the_brain [accessed Jun 7, 2016].

This clearly suggests to me that there is a classical EM analogue to Mach's principle, in that Hiley defines his measure space and includes a time parameter missing from conventional quantum theory.

[Q-reeus]

Kevin,

Fortuitously, I happen to be reading a paper by Basil Hiley (referenced below) who formally develops a mathematical theory summarized as follows:

"We have a mathematical structure that is basic to both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. At this level there is no basic difference between the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics. The difference arises once one asserts there is a minimum value for this action and equates this value to Planck's constant h. Thus as long as we do not ask questions that are sensitive to the finite nature of this quantum of action (1) the similarity between classical and quantum mechanics is remarkable."

(note 1) 1 This is the origins of Bohr's 'indivisibility of the quantum of action.'

Chapter 11. Information, quantum theory and the brain. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _the_brain [accessed Jun 7, 2016].

This clearly suggests to me that there is a classical EM analogue to Mach's principle, in that Hiley defines his measure space and includes a time parameter missing from conventional quantum theory.

Hi Tom,
You are no doubt far better clued up on matters QM than myself, however....The observational issues mentioned before could be expanded almost indefinitely. The really dramatic predicted scenarios all stem from postulated changes to electronic inertia owing to a high negative electrostatic potential. Or quasi-static - e.g. high tension transmission lines criss-crossing most populated areas of the world. Chemical bonds simply vanish when electron net inertial mass -> 0, at a predicted negative potential of less than one megavolt. Not just gases dissociating, but solids, liquids, including (gulp) biological organisms. Probably severe biological effects would manifest at even modest negative (likely also positive) electrostatic potentials, given the delicacy of many e.g. enzymatic & other protein structures, complex folding operations, interactions etc. Doesn't happen - thankfully. Well, one could do a search for "Hutchison effect", but note carefully the skeptical entries!
If there is some coupling along the lines suggested, it must be at a much lower level than that given in Jay's current article.
One thing I failed to mention last post; in the accelerated frame of line 1, there must actually be an -∂A/∂t owing to the relative acceleration of inertial line 2. However the net E field of 2 on 1 is just the instantaneous Lorentz transformed static field of 2 seen in 1's frame. Hence an E field emanating from 2 always normal to the line axis.
A formal explanation is that owing to non-simultaneity, in addition to the ramp vector potential -∂A/∂t owing to line 2's relative not absolute acceleration, a scalar potential gradient also exists along 2 in 1's frame, such that -∇φ (longitudinal component) -∂A/∂t = 0. It's all there in the standard SR Lorentz transformations.
When it's worked out for the absolute acceleration case of line 1 seen in 2's inertial frame, there is no such cancellation. Hence absolute not relative acceleration applies for standard electrodynamics.
There are iirc worked examples in EM textbooks such as "Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" Lorrain & Corson 2nd & 3rd editions, but I can't recall offhand exactly where.

I did come across one site that might give some comfort to the relative acceleration position - but i found it obscure and appeals to Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath686/kmath686.htm
For what it's worth, I'll reproduce verbatim (apart from an overlaid hyperlink) the relevant passage (about half-way down the page):

Unfortunately Langevin was mistaken about the example he chose, because although it obviously is possible to experimentally sense absolute acceleration (using an accelerometer, for example), the appeal to the production of electromagnetic radiation as a clear indication of such acceleration is actually false. Not only is it problematic to assert that a uniformly accelerating charge radiates, it is now understood that radiation does not have an absolute sense. In classical electrodynamics this is made explicit in the rather Machian interpretation of radiation reaction given in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, in which the effects of electromagnetic radiation are modeled as interactions (advanced and retarded) between charges in relative (not absolute) acceleration. Whether or not radiation is present at a given event depends on whether we view it from an accelerated reference system. (In fact, even in vacuum nominally devoid of electric and magnetic fields, Unruh radiation is the name given to radiation that appears in terms of an accelerating system of reference.) This is fairly obvious to anyone acquainted with the distant-retarded-action view of electromagnetism, but it’s very surprising to people who hold to the aetheristic view. This is an example of why the classical aether models fell into disfavor, especially as an ontological foundation for electromagnetism.

As I have argued, observationally we do not live in a world subject to weird and indeed catastrophic consequences of relatively large but regularly generated electrostatic/quasi-static potentials.

[Yablon]

As to the effects being manifested classically as above example or quantum mechanically e.g. electron gyromagnetic ratio or atomic emission spectra, is really moot.

Kevin,

I do not agree. You have been claiming that my theory predict some catastrophic, and certainly-discernible spectral shifts in atomic emissions. I have shown a potential connection to electron g-factors being the evidence of the time dilations I have predicted. Look at the Lamb shift: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /lamb.html, for example. This is a spectral shift and was the first empirical evidence that eventually led to Schwinger and others to a g-factor slightly higher than 2 based on electron self-interaction. I am saying that these same shifts likely are understood as a consequence of time contraction coming about from electron self-interaction. They match up, one to the other, and are just alternative ways of saying the same thing. So the spectral shifts you are saying should be observed based on my theory are already observed.

Jay

[Q-reeus]

As to the effects being manifested classically as above example or quantum mechanically e.g. electron gyromagnetic ratio or atomic emission spectra, is really moot.

Kevin,

I do not agree. You have been claiming that my theory predict some catastrophic, and certainly-discernible spectral shifts in atomic emissions. I have shown a potential connection to electron g-factors being the evidence of the time dilations I have predicted. Look at the Lamb shift: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /lamb.html, for example. This is a spectral shift and was the first empirical evidence that eventually led to Schwinger and others to a g-factor slightly higher than 2 based on electron self-interaction. I am saying that these same shifts likely are understood as a consequence of time contraction coming about from electron self-interaction. They match up, one to the other, and are just alternative ways of saying the same thing. So the spectral shifts you are saying should be observed based on my theory are already observed.

Jay

Jay,
That you can get agreement with anomalous g-factor by applying your theory, using iirc Compton wavelength as a bound, is a plus for sure. I have simply tried to extend the proposed physics to other situations, all based on your now v3-1 eqn (2.10). Which in most cases of interest reduces to just considering the low energy regime ratio eφ/(mc²) as per eqn (6.8) p16 of v3-1 article. If your submission to a journal or journals comes through successfully then it will be a case of well done. I would then be obliged to look again at my own take on it which seem sound enough but maybe not. No doubt the verdict of professional physicists i.e. any journal referees will carry far more weight as they should. So let's see how it all goes in that arena.
Best,
Kevin

[thray]

Kevin,

You make a nice discussion -- and maybe it is even a discussion I would like to have -- it just isn't responsive to the point I was making (or intended to make).

Jay's introduction of time dilation most obviously affects the electrodynamics. Because time is dilated only in the direction of its motion -- there exists more than one direction, or else we would not know which direction is preferred when we refer to "time". ("No observation in any experiment was ever made except in some direction". ~ Joy Christian") Because we do know a preferred direction--a topological point at infinity--we specify the space of S^2 X S^2 topology, which is identical to a 3-sphere.

To return to the Basil Hiley excerpt:

"We have a mathematical structure that is basic to both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. At this level there is no basic difference between the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics. The difference arises once one asserts there is a minimum value for this action and equates this value to Planck's constant h. Thus as long as we do not ask questions that are sensitive to the finite nature of this quantum of action (1) the similarity between classical and quantum mechanics is remarkable."

I am just going to leave it there for now. If this draws comment, I will continue.

Tom

[Q-reeus]

Jay's introduction of time dilation most obviously affects the electrodynamics. Because time is dilated only in the direction of its motion -- there exists more than one direction, or else we would not know which direction is preferred when we refer to "time". ("No observation in any experiment was ever made except in some direction". ~ Joy Christian") Because we do know a preferred direction--a topological point at infinity--we specify the space of S^2 X S^2 topology, which is identical to a 3-sphere.

Tom, maybe 'direction' has some subtle 4-vector or other interpretation there, since a simple inspection of eqn's (6.7), (6.8) of v3-1 paper:
http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0259 (V3-1: 2016-06-03 10:49:28)
makes it clear the coupling to scalar potential φ is itself a scalar thus spatially isotropic. Source of φ could be e.g. a point charge, or a spherically symmetric enveloping distribution. Makes no difference to the 'time dilation' aka net inertial mass of a test charge immersed in such a φ. I placed time dilation in quotes because, as belatedly realized:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=266#p6452
there is a predicted paradoxical increase in atomic emission spectra frequencies if electron inertial mass increases. The opposite of that implied by above referred eqn (6.8). Whether processes speed up or slow down evidently depends on specifics of system considered. Which is why I prefer the imo more consistent designation of 'altered inertial mass'. An assumed scalar variation.

As to Joy's comment, I assume there is a hidden assumption that vectorial/spinor/rank-2 tensorial quantities are implied (polarization, spin, uniaxial/biaxial stress, etc.). Because scalar quantities e.g. pressure, temperature, time (and it's dilation), energy density, have no direction. At least not in any usual sense. Except perhaps time as 'dimension' in the purely abstract Minkowski metric sense.

To return to the Basil Hiley excerpt:

"We have a mathematical structure that is basic to both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. At this level there is no basic difference between the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics. The difference arises once one asserts there is a minimum value for this action and equates this value to Planck's constant h. Thus as long as we do not ask questions that are sensitive to the finite nature of this quantum of action (1) the similarity between classical and quantum mechanics is remarkable."

OK, but how exactly does that impacts on Jay's theory?
Best,
Kevin

[thray]

Jay's introduction of time dilation most obviously affects the electrodynamics. Because time is dilated only in the direction of its motion -- there exists more than one direction, or else we would not know which direction is preferred when we refer to "time". ("No observation in any experiment was ever made except in some direction". ~ Joy Christian") Because we do know a preferred direction--a topological point at infinity--we specify the space of S^2 X S^2 topology, which is identical to a 3-sphere.

Tom, maybe 'direction' has some subtle 4-vector or other interpretation there, since a simple inspection of eqn's (6.7), (6.8) of v3-1 paper:
http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0259 (V3-1: 2016-06-03 10:49:28)
makes it clear the coupling to scalar potential φ is itself a scalar thus spatially isotropic. Source of φ could be e.g. a point charge, or a spherically symmetric enveloping distribution. Makes no difference to the 'time dilation' aka net inertial mass of a test charge immersed in such a φ. I placed time dilation in quotes because, as belatedly realized:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=266#p6452
there is a predicted paradoxical increase in atomic emission spectra frequencies if electron inertial mass increases. The opposite of that implied by above referred eqn (6.8). Whether processes speed up or slow down evidently depends on specifics of system considered. Which is why I prefer the imo more consistent designation of 'altered inertial mass'. An assumed scalar variation.

As to Joy's comment, I assume there is a hidden assumption that vectorial/spinor/rank-2 tensorial quantities are implied (polarization, spin, uniaxial/biaxial stress, etc.). Because scalar quantities e.g. pressure, temperature, time (and it's dilation), energy density, have no direction. At least not in any usual sense. Except perhaps time as 'dimension' in the purely abstract Minkowski metric sense.

To return to the Basil Hiley excerpt:

"We have a mathematical structure that is basic to both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. At this level there is no basic difference between the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics. The difference arises once one asserts there is a minimum value for this action and equates this value to Planck's constant h. Thus as long as we do not ask questions that are sensitive to the finite nature of this quantum of action (1) the similarity between classical and quantum mechanics is remarkable."

OK, but how exactly does that impacts on Jay's theory?
Best,
Kevin

Kevin,

That you toss out 'abstract' Minkowski spacetime and its metric properties underscores my point that one cannot coherently deal with any analytical framework in standard quantum theory context. Time is a scalar only when magnitude is addressed in a static theory, such as quantum mechanics.

Here, we are talking about a dynamical theory. Joy found a way to deal with dynamics without referring to time, by taking the main property of time from general relativity spacetime—that of reversibility—and combining it with an S^3 topology in which spatial torsion at the limit reverses the metric. (“the product of limits is the limit of a product.”)

I’m not afraid to share my bias – I test all measurement criteria for compatibility with general relativity. While quantum theorists make different and conflicting ad hoc assumptions to fit the theory into a procrustean bed; general relativity requires only the assumption of curved spacetime.

How, why and when spacetime curves, is subordinate to the more general framework that space and time are unified. Space alone, and time alone, do not have independent reality. Like Einstein, Joy made a framework to accommodate the measurement of timelike-correlated phenomena at all scales within the bounds of connected spacetime – a local correlation that Einstein was not able to achieve with the mathematical methods available to him. There are several nonlocal theories of connected spacetime – Bohm’s among them – that relate distant events to local events; Joy’s framework is the first to exploit the feature of self-similarity at every scale, which characterizes simply connected space. [Karl Hess and Walter Phillip also used the concept (in fact, named) timelike-correlated parameters.]

To the impact of Hiley’s statement, on Jay’s theory:

As you know, analysis requires boundary conditions. In Jay's equation, taking into account time uncertainty, the differential dt/dr on the interval (0,1) only asymptotically approaches 1 -- which we take to be equivalent to non-disappearing torsion in 4-space.

Jay's non-degenerate r term allows the dynamics ‘room’ to fluctuate within the interval, thus lending meaning to an action principle that orients randomly. It has long been known that if Planck’s constant were zero, the world would be entirely classical. Can we map the Planck limit? – only if the action is nonlinear – and this may be the most important characteristic for testing the theory. Because every event must be location time-stamped, and the action is reversible, we are able to determine over many iterations the theoretical ‘hole’ of non-interaction. No linear theory can do this. If such a region is shown nonexistent, nonlocality is dead.

Tom

[Q-reeus]

Kevin,

That you toss out 'abstract' Minkowski spacetime and its metric properties underscores my point that one cannot coherently deal with any analytical framework in standard quantum theory context. Time is a scalar only when magnitude is addressed in a static theory, such as quantum mechanics.

Here, we are talking about a dynamical theory. Joy found a way to deal with dynamics without referring to time, by taking the main property of time from general relativity spacetime—that of reversibility—and combining it with an S^3 topology in which spatial torsion at the limit reverses the metric. (“the product of limits is the limit of a product.”)

I’m not afraid to share my bias – I test all measurement criteria for compatibility with general relativity. While quantum theorists make different and conflicting ad hoc assumptions to fit the theory into a procrustean bed; general relativity requires only the assumption of curved spacetime.

How, why and when spacetime curves, is subordinate to the more general framework that space and time are unified. Space alone, and time alone, do not have independent reality. Like Einstein, Joy made a framework to accommodate the measurement of timelike-correlated phenomena at all scales within the bounds of connected spacetime – a local correlation that Einstein was not able to achieve with the mathematical methods available to him. There are several nonlocal theories of connected spacetime – Bohm’s among them – that relate distant events to local events; Joy’s framework is the first to exploit the feature of self-similarity at every scale, which characterizes simply connected space. [Karl Hess and Walter Phillip also used the concept (in fact, named) timelike-correlated parameters.]

To the impact of Hiley’s statement, on Jay’s theory:

As you know, analysis requires boundary conditions. In Jay's equation, taking into account time uncertainty, the differential dt/dr on the interval (0,1) only asymptotically approaches 1 -- which we take to be equivalent to non-disappearing torsion in 4-space.

Jay's non-degenerate r term allows the dynamics ‘room’ to fluctuate within the interval, thus lending meaning to an action principle that orients randomly. It has long been known that if Planck’s constant were zero, the world would be entirely classical. Can we map the Planck limit? – only if the action is nonlinear – and this may be the most important characteristic for testing the theory. Because every event must be location time-stamped, and the action is reversible, we are able to determine over many iterations the theoretical ‘hole’ of non-interaction. No linear theory can do this. If such a region is shown nonexistent, nonlocality is dead.

Tom

Tom,
A number of issues there that might want clarifying or expanding, but I suggest one exercie to cut to the chase, specific to Jay's article. I gave a reference before: eqn. (6.8) of v3-1 viXra paper. A very simple expression with an equally simple application. As long as one makes the appropriate interpretation - 'rate of time flow' is actually best understood as 'fractional change in inertial mass'. For reason covered in an earlier post. Slot then that prediction for modified electron inertial mass (so q = -|e| in (6.8)) into Rydberg 'constant' R connecting electron inertial mass to spectral lines of an atom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
Suppose some gas discharge lamp (sodium, mercury, whatever) is within a Faraday cage subject to a potential φ of X volts wrt ground. What do you find is the predicted fractional spectral shift wrt reference case of zero potential of cage? As measured by an external observer at ground potential. Should be easily detectable for readily obtainable values of X electrostatic volts? Do you find that at or beyond a given critical negative value of X, not hard to practically attain, drama is predicted? As in poof - no stable atomic/molecular structures.
That easy exercise should set other considerations you raised into perspective wrt current topic.

Kevin

[thray]

Kevin,

"Suppose some gas discharge lamp (sodium, mercury, whatever) is within a Faraday cage subject to a potential φ of X volts wrt ground. What do you find is the predicted fractional spectral shift wrt reference case of zero potential of cage? As measured by an external observer at ground potential. Should be easily detectable for readily obtainable values of X electrostatic volts? Do you find that at or beyond a given critical negative value of X, not hard to practically attain, drama is predicted? As in poof - no stable atomic/molecular structures. That easy exercise should set other considerations you raised into perspective wrt current topic."

It should, but it won't.

Time dilation distributes energy. Consider that one can pass a pin all the way through an inflated balloon if it's done slowly and carefully enough. The displacement of air molecules is not critical to the point of forcing rapid discharge. Likewise, chemical oxidation need not cause combustion,

So I question your "appropriate interpretation" of time flow as fractional change in inertial mass. I stress again the nonlinear nature of time -- time dilation in the direction of motion is energy dissipation in an infinity of directions. If this energy distribution is such that there is continuous nonlinear motion between ground and excited states -- I find that Jay's term for rate of time flow gamma_em " ... for a net-charged body q in a proper potential φ0 , in relation to the rate of time flow for a net-neutral body, all at relative rest ..." brings time and energy into equal relation.

It's brilliant.

Tom

[Q-reeus]

Time dilation distributes energy. Consider that one can pass a pin all the way through an inflated balloon if it's done slowly and carefully enough. The displacement of air molecules is not critical to the point of forcing rapid discharge. Likewise, chemical oxidation need not cause combustion,

So I question your "appropriate interpretation" of time flow as fractional change in inertial mass. I stress again the nonlinear nature of time -- time dilation in the direction of motion is energy dissipation in an infinity of directions. If this energy distribution is such that there is continuous nonlinear motion between ground and excited states -- I find that Jay's term for rate of time flow gamma_em " ... for a net-charged body q in a proper potential φ0 , in relation to the rate of time flow for a net-neutral body, all at relative rest ..." brings time and energy into equal relation.

It's brilliant.

Tom

I had drafted a fairly detailed response but on further thought no point. We have quite divergent views on this, so will just repeat the essence of my comment to Jay - let's see what comes back from any journal editor(s)/referee(s).

Kevin

[thray]

Fair enough, Kevin.

Some time ago, I wrote a short monograph, "Thomson's lamp in spacetime" [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T_H_Ray] outlining how simultaneous correlated measures limited by the speed of light converge on a upper limit of 2 in affine space, 2\/2 in 3-dimension space, and 4 in 4-dimension spacetime.

Jay's time dilation formula makes this reasonable. Time dilation in the direction of motion, and change of direction to a different time parameter, over repeated iterations, distributes perfectly (on multiple scales) and does not lead to catastrophic events. Each event is indexed, and local, so as to maintain metastability--i.e., the speed of light is self limited to a self-defined domain--bounding other domains by measure zero ("the boundary of a boundary is zero" ~ Wheeler).

That this zero comes with a "twist" in space makes it absolute, propagating as a transverse waveform, and guaranteeing reversibility.

Tom

[thray]

Coincidentally, I am reading How to Build a Time Machine by Brian Clegg, subtitled, "The real science of time travel." I come across this (p. 39):

"In trying to explain the nature of time, Augustine tells us that we can't truly say that time exists, but rather it tends to nonexistence. By this he means that the past and the future aren't here and now. they aren't part of the reality we directly experience -- but equally the present is constantly passing away. So in a sense time is more a direction than an entity."

Einstein's relativity treats time as an illusion; Minkowski spacetime makes no distinction in coordinates except in direction, with a metric signature + + + - or inversely - - - +. A simple sign change that permits curved spacetime in any direction convinces me that incorporating the point at infinity into measure space, such that this singular point separates R^3 from S^3, convinces me that Jay is right: we may have already observed time dilation, and not recognized it. In fact, 'geometrodynamcs' could not otherwise exist as an objective phenomenon. The observer must participate.

Tom

[Yablon]

So I question your "appropriate interpretation" of time flow as fractional change in inertial mass. I stress again the nonlinear nature of time -- time dilation in the direction of motion is energy dissipation in an infinity of directions. If this energy distribution is such that there is continuous nonlinear motion between ground and excited states -- I find that Jay's term for rate of time flow gamma_em " ... for a net-charged body q in a proper potential φ0 , in relation to the rate of time flow for a net-neutral body, all at relative rest ..." brings time and energy into equal relation.Tom

I have to agree with Tom. Time dilation is at the heart of kinetic energy and gravitational interaction energy, why would it also not be similarly seated for electromagnetic energy? Having there be a change in inertial mass -- which is an invariant scalar object -- would introduce more problems than it solves. There is a tight, unbreakable relation between energy and the flow of time, period. Jay

[Yablon]

To all:

Here is a status update on my paper Geometrodynamic Foundation of Electrodynamics.

As you know I submitted to a top letter journal. Last week I received the following review from the editorial board:

We have completed our collective initial editorial assessment of the manuscript. The conclusion of our assessment is as follows. Although we do not judge the technical aspects of your work, we are prepared, at this stage, to believe that it was competently executed and is technically correct. We would like to think that this study will be an interesting contribution to the literature on classical electrodynamics.

At the same time, unfortunately, our general view is that the degree of fundamental novelty of the manuscript and the overall scientific advance it represents, does not rise to the level . . . in accordance with the journal's recently defined new mission. As such, we believe that this paper would be much more suitable in a more specialized journal.

This was not a bad review, and it appears that several of the editors conferred about this.

Following, over the last few days, I updated the paper further, and yesterday did submit to a top specialized journal in the field. The latest draft is now at http://vixra.org/pdf/1605.0259v4.pdf.

This draft has improved development of the Lagrangian and geodesic gauge conditions, and a new section 7 presenting an energy flux equation for both gravitational and electrodynamic sources, in addition to general editorial improvements throughout which I hope will improve clarity. Many of these edits were in response to the following private communication that I received from a non-participating follower of this forum:

I just downloaded the June 3 Version 3 of your electrodynamics paper and noticed an important error or omission. On p. 11 you state without proof that it is always possible to "gauge away" an unwanted term in (3.4). This is not obvious to me. If you have a proof, you should give a reference to it. If you have no proof, you should not make the claim.

Also, on p. 1 you state that a timelike geodesic minimizes the proper time between two events. This is true for a positive definite metric, but not for spacetime (assuming that the time convention is chosen so that an observer's local clock always increases). You can see this in the much-discussed "twin paradox" in which a traveling twin returns younger (not older) than his unaccelerated twin. This is a minor error, but it may unnecessarily prejudice the editor and referee.

In the latest draft, the development of the "derivative along a curve" material and the emphasis on canonically-inertial motion, as well as the more detailed discussion and development of the gauge conditions, was motivated by these comments. In fact, although section 7 is new, I likely would not have been motivated to perform that calculation had I not been challenged to do a better development of the gauge conditions and come across this calculation while I was focused on the ambiguity that is inherent in gauge fields and how gauge fixing is used to remove that ambiguity.

I look forward to continued discussions.

Jay

[Q-reeus]

So I question your "appropriate interpretation" of time flow as fractional change in inertial mass. I stress again the nonlinear nature of time -- time dilation in the direction of motion is energy dissipation in an infinity of directions. If this energy distribution is such that there is continuous nonlinear motion between ground and excited states -- I find that Jay's term for rate of time flow gamma_em " ... for a net-charged body q in a proper potential φ0 , in relation to the rate of time flow for a net-neutral body, all at relative rest ..." brings time and energy into equal relation.Tom

I have to agree with Tom. Time dilation is at the heart of kinetic energy and gravitational interaction energy, why would it also not be similarly seated for electromagnetic energy? Having there be a change in inertial mass -- which is an invariant scalar object -- would introduce more problems than it solves. There is a tight, unbreakable relation between energy and the flow of time, period. Jay

Jay, you claim proper inertial mass is an invariant - period. Yet one consistent example you give in the various versions of viXra article makes the point of an expected change in clock-rate of a charged vs uncharged clock (presumably an old-fashioned spring-flywheel mechanical type) in an external potential, betrays that claim as false. Logically proper inertial mass of charged matter has to vary according to the external potential, otherwise any purported change in clock-rate is a literally baseless notion. An uncharged observer within the same equipotential region will obviously note one clock changes rate while the other, neutral one, does not. We assume spring stiffness is invariant wrt potential (dubious re atomic processes as I have covered earlier, but anyway let's just here assume...). Which leaves just proper inertial mass as variable. And I maintain atomic spectra already furnish a perfectly satisfactory clock with which to test the basic idea. Of such things Brillouin and others looked into long ago, as mentioned before numbers of times.

PS - For some reason, have been cut out of email notifications following the post viewtopic.php?f=6&t=266&start=20#p6534

[thray]

Kevin,

Have you forgotten that time dilation is length contraction?

Clock rates vary with change in direction.

One sufficient definition of a faster than light particle is one that changes direction without changing speed. Given this definition, proper relativistic inertial mass is a function of kinetic energy, and does not vary with changes in velocity.

So " ... for a net-charged body q in a proper potential φ0 , in relation to the rate of time flow for a net-neutral body, all at relative rest ..." clocks need be compared at relative rest prior to introduction of kinetic energy, which is measured in a specific direction of negative acceleration, which contracts length and dilates time.

Einstein characterized relativity as "finite and unbounded," meaning finite in time (bounded at the singularity of creation) and unbounded in space. Turning this on its head -- finite in space and unbounded in time -- allows kinetic potential to be stable in a compressed state.

[Q-reeus]

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).

[thray]

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

[Yablon]

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