What about electromagnetic time dilation?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Ooh! Ooh! I know the main ingrediend of "dark matter"--it's "Planck matter"! (Re: Would proton decay allow for black holes?)
Next: Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Jan 2010 22:32 On Jan 9, 4:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > Hi Lady's and Gents.... > > >> Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > ... > > >> >> Yeah Ken, I'm sure you are going to revolutionize physics with > >> >> "a.b"... > > >> > I find my mentors correct, I'll quote Wheeler, > > >> You never studied under Wheeler. > > > LOL, unlike "Knee-pad Eric Grisse", I've never studied 'under' > > anyone. > > Yeah Ken, oblique references to cocksucking Eric jumps to a conclusion based on his intimate relationships with his teachers, sure hope one of them was a 'girl', yes I know, butt I have faith. > never get old. I like the > classless attempt at making yourself look good by proudly proclaiming you > never studied under any professor. > > Because as we all know, ignorance is a way of knowing things. > > > As I said, I'd get together for a few social hours every few months > > to go over outstanding common issues for maybe 30-60 minutes with > > profs then yak for an hour about stuff. The meeting ref material is > > always prepared in advance, usually I did that. I never actually met > > Wheeler, and I do regret not parlezing with him in person. > > So basically your study amounts to social chitchat. Sounds about right, > given your displayed abilities. Finally Eric you got something right. > >> > "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we > >> > grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say > >> > to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have > >> > been so stupid? > >> > John Archibald Wheeler " > > > I think Wheeler appreciates the EFE's founded from, > > > S.S = (X + a).(X + b) = X.X + a.b == X.X + h , (Eq.4+) Maybe for entertainment, I'll make "h" musical, any song you want. Eq(4+) is static, fundamental. What would happen to Eq.(4+) if we made it Eq.(4++). Let's try it, S.S = (X + a).(X + b) = X.X + a.b == X.X + h , (Eq.4+) S.S +/- h => a Quantum Variation , (Eq.4++) in the nonorthogonal spacetime field. An alternative means of enjoying the any new QV is by Power sensation, where Power (W) is the the flux of Energy such as, W = DELTA Energy /DELTA time == DELTA W ==> photon exchange. when DELTA is the smallest possible finite entity of W exchange. If Power is quantized, can it be crystalized? J. Yablon has been working on that sort of thing for quite awhile. It's a mental stretch. The movement of power has a geometric shape of many forms, that are quantized, as atoms in the periodic table. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: Darwin123 on 12 Jan 2010 14:43 On Jan 8, 6:23 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Darwin, I'm referring to the paper which claims to contain these > calculations and there is nice table with comparison of this theory > with experiment for ten different elements and it looks surprisingly > good. > The question is if these results were properly verified? > These papers were published in quite a good journal (General > Relativity and Gravitation), so I believe reviewers checked earlier > this controversial result (?) > The question is - why there are practically no comments about these > papers? > I'm trying to contact the author to ask if there were some concrete > counterarguments. > > But are they really so surprising? > Standard picture says that electromagnetism is Lorentz invariant > because of Maxwell equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic > curvature for that ... but this invariance could be just achieved by > using second set of Maxwell's equations - with mass density instead of > charge density and so on ... I used to be very interested in this type of model. In this model, gravity satisfies an "electromagnetic analog". You can get Lorentz invariance with this type of model. I strongly suspect that it is a subset of special relativity (SR). The electromagnetic analog does not reproduce all the invariance displayed by general relativity (GR). One can not get the equivalence principle from this model. The equivalence principle produces many if not most of the effects that are seen as validating GR. GR is seen as the more accurate theory. Electromagnetic analog is seen as a very limited approximation of GR. My favorite part of the electromagnetic analog is the way it elegantly explains "frame dragging." The GR explanation of frame dragging involves the dragging of space -time. However, the electromagnetic analog reduces this to the gravitational analog of a magnetic field. Look up "gravimagnetisim" or "magnetogravity." The idea is that given the traditional gravitational field is analogous to an electric field, the Lorentz transform of the gravitational field must produce another type of field analogous to a magnetic field. I find this description of frame dragging both physically intuitive and aesthetically appealing. Unfortunately, the unabridged GR predicts phenomena other than frame-dragging. Not all these phenomena are so easily explained by the electromagnetic analog. I present just one example of where the "electromagnetic analog" fails. The electromagnetic analog of gravity does not predict the "gravitational red shift." Using straight-up GR, it is easy to deduce the clock in a gravitational potential runs slower than a clock outside the gravitational potential. This is sometimes called the gravitational red shift. The gravitational red shift has been validated by several experiments. Some people here quarrel with the interpretations of the experimental results. I have argued with these guys before. However, you should be aware that the "electromagnetic analog" doesn't explain these experiments. > ... and there are very popular unification theories with suggest that > these interactions aren't so qualitatively different ... Unification is irrelevant to what you are discussing. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of GR. I am not an expert, but I know this. GR is not Lorentz invariant on a universal scale. Instead, it is based on covariance. Covariance is a broader symmetry than Lorentz invariance. So models that are Lorentz invariant are not necessarily covariant. GR predicts many phenomena that are not included in SR. > Remember that general relativity was experimentally confirmed only up > to the first approximation - gravitation, time dilation, Mercury > precession, redshift, gravitational lensing ... can we be sure how it > looks in higher approximations? I learned this arguing with someone on this forum very much like you are doing now. What I learned, and verified later on my own, is that the weak field limit of GR is not equivalent to SR. Hence, even the first order approximations of GR are sufficient to cause serious discrepancy with experimental results. That being said, I have serious doubts that GR will last forever as being the most accurate description of nature. The serious contradictions occur with regard to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has been validated more than GR. Since there is apparently a contradiction between QM and GR, I doubt GR. I Therefore, I would not be surprised if the idea of black hole had to be seriously modified in the future. The black hole, as described in many a science fiction movie, probably doesn't exist. All the observations in outer space support the idea of a highly compressed body in some ways like a black hole. However, I think what you call the "higher order measurements" will show some seriously none GR behavior. I am too cowardly to stand beside that daring bit of conjecture, and will drop it like a hot potato at the least sign of scientific evidence |:-) > > 7, it's for completely different discussion, but probably Aharonov- > Bohm effect should interest Why? They haven't performed experiments involving both the AB effect and gravity. AB is an example of quantum mechanics. When they do the same thing using black holes instead of electrons, then we can talk about it.
From: Darwin123 on 14 Jan 2010 18:53 On Jan 9, 4:29 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Many people consider seriously force unification ... > I believe now is the time that the second side start saying something > concrete, finally say why it's 'disproven by observation', give us > some concrete experimental evidence that these forces are really so > qualitatively different, maybe that these published in good journal > articles are fraud???? > > ps. Uncle Al - You also promised me the proof that there are > completely no protons in neutron stars? If Uncle Al promised such a proof, then he is probably wrong. Statistically, there should be an equilibrium between the protons, the electrons, and the neutrons. I have read speculation that the uncombined protons in a neutron star could form nucleonic molecules. Perhaps these nucleonic molecules could form a type of nucleonic life. For two hard science fiction models with this premise, read: "Dragon's Egg" and "Star Quake". Yes, this is all speculation. In any case, I don't think Al is the sort of person who would promise such a proof. Nor do I see what such a proof would do to your conjectures. I suspect that you misunderstood something Uncle Al said. I think you are reading something in a scientific article that isn't there. I am not clear what it is you are trying to show. This is the sort of thing that gets Al to exclaim "Idiot." You should be extremely proud if you got Uncle Al to say anything at all beside "Idiot!" If you persist in misrepresenting scientific articles, I will be forced to take his place !-) I don't want to do that.
From: Jarek Duda on 22 Jan 2010 08:09 Darwin, I apology for not responding - I forgot about checking this discussion. But still I don't see any concrete arguments that EM and gravity have to be so qualitatively different as in Einstein's picture ... which is kind of (extremely controversial!) extrapolating curve having a single tangent ... About protons in neutron star and some nice and careful about his strong beliefs person: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a67ff9d1eac93540/68e6fd986107487d?lnk=raot Returning to the previous post... SR says that interactions are transferred with constant speed, what is also characteristic for wave equations (hyperbolic). Interesting fact is that for such field theories something completely fundamental: energy density is completely symmetric - doesn't choose any time dimension. We do it while going to Lagrangian density after choosing some time dimension: Wick rotation corresponds to energy <-> Lagrangian transformation. So SR can be also seen as the result of complete 4D symmetry of our spacetime - that all asymmetries are properties of the solution we are living in. You suggest that SR contradicts GR related effects, but I don't agree. Observe that if there is no controversial intrinsic curvature of our spacetime (which also make quantum gravity non-renormalizable...), there is still a place for curvature - of 3D constant time submanifolds - in each point orthogonal to the central axis of the light cone ('local time direction') - they create foliation of our (flat?) spacetime. So 'curvature' could be just 'curvature of local time directions field'. Now let's imagine that particles aren't just some abstract points of infinite density, but have some internal structure - such 'curvature' would influence it a bit - changing a bit it's macroscopic resultants like mass, charge, magnetic momentum. It should cause that in atoms in such curvature made by gravitational or electromagnetic potential, electrons choose a bit closer orbits, so molecules are a bit smaller ... and finally the whole matter is a bit rescaled - and so interactions travelling with the same velocity, creates in first approximation a bit faster reason-result chains - causing time dilation and redshift...
From: Jarek Duda on 6 Feb 2010 17:17
I've recently found out that the simpler way of making gravity Lorentz invariant (which naturally appeared unified with electromagnetism in my paper) - by using a second set of Maxwell's equations is widely considered and generally gives similar consequences as Einstain's controversial theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/14/tdm5.pdf |