Prev: BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
Next: Do you want to chat with troll Dono about relativity?, try this
From: Ken S. Tucker on 11 Nov 2008 17:11
Hi to all.
After extended consultations, we have decided,
from the GP-b and the LIGO null result to move
forward using the physics herein,
http://physics.trak4.com/
to improve accuracy.

The revised General Theory of Relativity is
based on the General Principles of Relativity
(GPoR), but we now designate that as the Theory
of *Unitivity* embodied within Eq.(4) here,

http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

that is in accord with Modern SpaceTime, (MST),
and see the departure from "flat" Euclidean
measure "X^2" by *charge* relations "a.b" yields
the "S^2" in all intrinsic NonOrthogonal spaces.

The physical meaning of that departure is
quantized by "a.b" which has units of action,
"h".

In geometry we can have a long adjecent and
hypotenus with an opposite that is quantized
(by "h") to form the spacetime curvature.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

















From: Ken S. Tucker on 15 Nov 2008 18:32
Hi Guys...

On Nov 15, 12:56 pm, clma...(a)online.fr wrote:
> > >That's right, but we don't measure the position, but the momentum.
> > >The eigenfunctions of the momentum are plane waves, therefore we have
> > >to decompose the wave function in plane waves. From the superposition
> > >principle, we can look at what happens for each of these plane waves.
> > >And actually, there is a bent in the wave vector. If there is no
> > >detector, the momentum difference must appear somewhere else.
>
> On 15 nov, 20:36, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ? we cannot measure momentum with no detector.
>
> We don't need to measure it. The sole process of passing through the
> slit may be described as I did. When the detection occurs, the wave
> function is projected onto one of the plane waves. Now we can ask
> what happens if the momentum of the slit is measured. As its motion
> is correlated with the one of the particle, and as the total momentum
> hasn't changed between the passing and the detection, the recoil
> momentum will be measured. It may seems strange that the state of the
> slit changes at the time of detection of the particle, information
> going backward in time, but only so in the frame where the slit is at
> rest. There is a frame where both measures are simultaneous. There
> may even be a frame where the momentum of the slit is measured first.
> The diffraction pattern is then destroyed since the outgoing wave is
> now a plane wave. So, we see again that the experiment may be done
> without detector. It is another case of non covariant conceptual
> description of a process.
> ~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
> Liberty, Equality, Profitability.

When a youngster, my Old Boy had a napthalene filter
that was such a fine screening that naptha would go
through but not water. Said fliter was ~ 40mm diameter
and that matched my refractor telescope objective lens.
Placing that on the front of the objective lens then
created a sort of diffraction grating effect, observable at
eyepiece when viewing stars, white lights, red lights etc.

The observation is easily repeated therefore scientific.
I'll do a poopy ascii Fig fielded with dots as the background,
of what I observed from a point (star) light O,

........Y
......../\.............
........||.............
.....<==O==>........X
........||............
........\/............

The screen was cartesian and so was the dispertion rendering
a spectrum extending from O, that rotated as the screen was
rotated. The spectral effect was symmetrical from O along axes
X and Y, with red being at the extremes.

In adjuct to theory, the above experiment provides a means for
nearly any sighted theoretician to confirm, and from that make
their own conclusions.
This post may appear Off Topic, but if perchance it is accepted,
we may gain insight into diffraction grating theory, and from
that insight into the "single slit" experiment.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
From: Ken S. Tucker on 17 Nov 2008 01:51
On Nov 16, 6:46 pm, "Rich L." <ralivings...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
....
> Whenever a particle is scattered by the slit, there will be a reaction
> impulse on the slit. The experimental problem is measuring it,
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering#Small_size_parameter_approximation

> Why do you say this? Both events are scattering problems. Both can
> be calculated the same way as scattering by a potential, and can be
> treated in the same perturbational way. The treatment of diffraction
> from a slit usually is NOT done this way, but it could be, and would
> give the correct result. I think part of the problem in this
> discussion is a subtle and unmentioned assumption that the mass of the
> slit is infinite. When doing diffraction, we never consider the
> reaction of the slit. In effect, we are assuming the slit has
> infinite mass. This hides the momentum transfer to the slit and,
> really, is the source of all the confusion here.

Ok, how does an inelastic scattering assumption explain
the heating of a transparent atmosphere, by sunlight? Well
I think it does NOT. In the above ref is a macro scattering,
(Rayleigh) of *elastic* scattering.
I'll suggest (presume) sunlight heats atmosphere prior to
contact with Earth's surface, then the energy lost by the
scattering would transfer kinetic energy (heat) to the air
and would need to red-shift the light as it surrenders energy
to heat the air, of course "transparency" depends upon
absorption between the frequency and the medium, such
as *spectral absorption*.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
From: Ken S. Tucker on 21 Nov 2008 18:46
Hi Peter, Jan and Charles.

On Nov 21, 2:33 pm, Peter <end...(a)dekasges.de> wrote:
> On 21 Nov., 14:26, nos...(a)de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Peter <end...(a)dekasges.de> wrote:
> > > On 19 Nov., 12:56, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Thus spake Oz <O...(a)farmeroz.port995.com>
>
> > > > >3) The ration e_o/u_o is the resistance (or permitivity) of the vacuum.
> > > > >Its not zero or one and essentially means two of c, e_0, u_0 are
> > > > >effectively universal constants. That is, send any two to some distant
> > > > >galaxy and your em units can be interconverted (and probably a few more
> > > > >things too).
>
> > > > This was the bit at which I found A level physics became
> > > > incomprehensible and one simply had to learn it. How a simple choice of
> > > > units remains confused with a property of nothing has always been a
> > > > mystery.
>
> > > Please account for the facts, that
> > > - there are not only E and B, but also D and H;
>
> > Eps_r and mu_r will take care of all that
> > without invoking an eps_0 or mu_0.
>
> Please demonstrate the occurrence of eps_r and mu_r without eps_0 and
> mu_0 in more detail
>
> > > - B and D are area vectors (defined via there divergence), while E and
> > > H are line vectors (defined via forces).
> > The fields are not vectors or pseudovectors at all.
> > They only appear as such in a too restricted 3-D treatment.
> > In reality they are 4-tensor components.
>
> If physics would be that simple...

Apparently the 3 magnetic field components expressed
in a 2nd rank tensor fashion as
B1 = F13, B2 = F13, B3 = F21
seems tight in 3D, but then another 3 Electric field
components are conventionally,
E1 = F14, E2 = F24 , E3 = F34,
for a total of 6 vectors in 4D spacetime, meaning
one really has a problem jamming those 6 vectors
into 4D, ((apart from antisymmetric metrics)).

That those 6 are required can be understood by an
analysis of dipole EM Radiation, as a measureable
Current and Voltage cyclically creating a Magnetic
field (via current), then an Electric field (via charge).

> F. W. Hehl & Y. N. Obukhov (Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics.
> Charge, Flux, and Metric, Basel: Birkhäuser 2003) see it differently

Is there an online ref?

> > > These subtleties are hidden in the common special-relativistic
> > > treatments.
> > On the contrary, in a good special relativistic treatment
> > the tensor character of the fields is explained,
> > ande used for a better understanding of the physics involved.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know such a justification of the Procrustes bed
> of Lorentz-covariant 4-tensors

Maybe I can help. Consider the E1 = F10 as,

F10 = &A_0 / &x^1 - & A_1 / &x^0

The 1st term on the RHS is gets an E= q/r^2 E-field.
The 2nd term is an induced electric field, like a magnetic
moving through a coil to create a voltage (E-field) as the
basis of a generator.
((correct me if I'm wrong though)).

> Peter
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
From: Ken S. Tucker on 23 Nov 2008 15:00
Hi Oz, Charles and all...

On Nov 23, 4:31 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thus spake Oz <O...(a)farmeroz.port995.com>
>
> >Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>
> >>>The only place that contains 'nothing' is outside our universe, and I
> >>>claim this doesn't count.
>
> >>If its really a vacuum, it is not possible to define "place" in any
> >>conventional way, because there is nothing there to which one may ascribe
> >>the property of position.
>
> >I claim this doesn't count. That is by your definition it doesn't exist.
> >Its inherently undetectable, if you detected it, by your definition it
> >wouldn't be vacuum!
>
> Indeed it does not exist. This is why one cannot answer the "which slit"
> question, and many others.
>
> >>But this does happen in our universe. It is precisely what we observe in
> >>quantum mechanics. For example, we cannot define which slit the particle
> >>came through in a Young's slits experiment.
>
> >As you remember I don't consider there to be any particles, everything
> >is fundamentally a wave (allbeit some are very compact waves).
> >Consequentially the particle went through both slits and in passing
> >filled the spacetime in a predictable way.
>
> We have discussed this before. Your belief is based on your failure to
> take on board the implications of collapse, and the proposal of a
> metaphysics which simply does not work. How, for example, do you account
> for Bell test correlations?
>
> >Actually your own theory rather runs along similar philosophic lines,
> >that is spacetime is constructed from interactions (typically that
> >wavelike em wave), and I completely agree with that.
>
> No, the interactions are between particles, but the particles are not
> classical particles embedded in space. In the absence of space, the only
> structure consists of the particles themselves and their interactions.
> Certain patterns of interactions lead to the structure we call space,
> and when those patterns are absent, the laws of quantum theory are
> found.

I lean toward Oz's thinking, by setting up 8 satellites at
the corners of a large cube enclosing a space, "within
our universe", was Oz's caveat, that is important.
An observer at any corner can use relating 3 laser's along
x,y,z to the other observers to survey the cube.
If the laser's directions are accurately measured, then a
sum of the relating angles (90,90,90) in Euclidean space
may differ to be (89,89,89), indicating a mass within the
cube.
Even if the angles were (90,90,90), that cube may have
a non-zero mass density and be embedded within a region
of a non-zero mass density that is homogenous, enclosing
a space containing matter, the observers cannot measure.

The absence of a measurement only means anything can
be there.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
Next: Do you want to chat with troll Dono about relativity?, try this