Dear Johan,

I absolutely agree.

This is why, from the now much more extensive knowledge we have about electromagnetic energy, I analyzed how the energy represented by mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields could naturally structure to explain the inner transversely oscillating energy making up all localized elementary charged (thus electromagnetic) particles, which I think will eventually get us out of the current dead end.

As always in the past, we will have to wait for the upcoming generation to become sufficiently interested to study the model in depth and become aware of the potential benefits.

Best Regards

André

Dear Johan,

I don't understand how can you separate particles from fields. The fields must be made microscopically by particles when we assume that they carry energy and momentum able to scatter a particle. For instance, it would be impossible to understand effects as Compton without assuming that the electromagnetic field is made by photons On the other hand Maxwell equations works fantastically well for fields, thus it seems that both things are just different aspects of the same physical object.

"I don't understand how can you separate particles from fields."

Dear Daniel,

sorry, I think I did just the contrary by stating that particles may be interpreted as field vortices.

Dear Johan,

In line with Korzybski, I think that the "map" must not be confused with the "country".

The "fields" are mathematical/geometrical concepts that have been conceived by Gauss to represent the "physically existing electromagnetic energy". The fields and the equations are "maps", and the physically existing electromagnetic energy that the fields represent are "the country".

It is of the physically existing EM energy that particles can be made of.

The "fields" and "equations" are just mathematical representations on a sheet of paper and in our heads. When we think about, we should always be aware that they are "what we have understood to date" of the behavior of the really existing EM energy.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

thanks for your map-and-countries picture. Where would you place the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction? Is it just abstract mathematics or real?

Dear Johan,

Sorry, I have understood that your question:

Are fields the basic substance of the universe rather than particles?

That for you fields and particles are two different "substances". But your interpretation of the particles as field vortices is quite difficult to understand for me. The scattering of two vortices is quite different of what I understand for the scattering of two particles. Nowadays there is great amount of work made on the vortices but they appear always as a very different object than a physical particle creating a field as can be an electron.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.00143.pdf

Dear Johan,

From what I observed, Maxwell was the first to understand that electromagnetic energy such as light could only propagate if it transversally oscillates between a state mathematically describable with the E field and a state mathematically describable with the B field.

So, the mathematical concept of electromagnetic induction is obviously just "descriptive mathematics", but the real energy behavior as transversally oscillating between two states, seemingly mutually inducing each other, seems to be real.

The mathematical description seems to correctly describe this physically occurring process to a large extent, since all successful practical applications of electromagnetic energy based on Maxwell's equations are what caused so much progress and benefits for us to enjoy.

Let us not forget that mathematics are only a "language" that we use to describe physically existing processes. Over time, as we understand better the physically existing processes, we can further adapt the "language" to account for this clearer understanding.

The best example that comes to mind, is Newton's kinetic energy equation that he established before relativistic velocities were know to increase the mass.

Undetectable in Newton's time from any available velocities that could be experimented with E=(mv^2)/2.

Now we know that it should be E=(gamma m v^2)/2

As we learn more about electromagnetic energy, we will be able to clarify further Maxwell's equations. In fact, I think that we now know sufficiently to proceed to further clarifying of the mathematical representations.

Best Regards

André

"vortices ... appear always as a very different object than a physical particle"

Dear Daniel,

"vortex" models may in fact lead to reasonable values for both, the proton radius and magnetic moment, see reference below. When propagating photons as oscillating fields may show the behavior of particles, why shouldn't field vortices do, in particular, as the latter in contrast to photons are localized and confined within typical elementary particle size volumes.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

"Let us not forget that mathematics are only a "language" that we use to describe physically existing processes."

Dear André,

I fully agree. But the formulation of mathematics usually requires some basic imagination or model of the process to describe it, and mathematics can fulfill itself on this model. Sometimes it can make sense to try out an alternative model, especially if the standard model reaches a dead end.

Dear Johan,

I absolutely agree.

This is why, from the now much more extensive knowledge we have about electromagnetic energy, I analyzed how the energy represented by mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields could naturally structure to explain the inner transversely oscillating energy making up all localized elementary charged (thus electromagnetic) particles, which I think will eventually get us out of the current dead end.

As always in the past, we will have to wait for the upcoming generation to become sufficiently interested to study the model in depth and become aware of the potential benefits.

Best Regards

André

Very nice question. I also absolutely agree on Dr. Andre.

Best!

"I analyzed how the energy represented by mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields could naturally structure ..."

Dear André,

quite an intriguing question! Are your ideas already available in written form?

When propagation of electromagnetic energy is described by the Pointing vector I imagine this will be centered in case of a vortice-type elementary particle thus accumulating the mass equivalent of the respective particle.

My initial question was, in fact, motivated by the question why the influence of remote masses on local phenomena apparently is neglected in the present scientific discussion. Maybe this is due to some negative perception of Mach‘s Principle.

After having been personally involved with James C. Keith‘s investigation on rotational drag due to interaction with remote masses in accordance with Mach‘s Principle, see reference below, I think the latter should be considered as well when discussing the nature of elementary particles.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_formation_of_elementary_particles_confirm_Machs_principle?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions

Dear Johan,

You ask if my ideas are already available in written form. Yes they are.

I took care that all of my analyses be formally published and referenced so that they remain available when articles regarding electromagnetism are searched for by the upcoming generation.

A unpublished index shortly summarizing the model and providing links to all of the related papers is available on RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299996221_The_3-Spaces_Model_-_Electromagnetic_mechanics

You rightly point out that the Poynting vector is an uncircumventable telltale that both electric and magnetic aspects of free propagating electromagnetic energy can only behave as if both aspects mutually induce each other. The very product EB in its equation reveals that the time varying product of both fields representations can only be mathematically constant. Confirmed successful applicability of Maxwell's equations in all related applications confirms that the underlying really existing and propagating energy really also behaves in this manner.

My opinion on what prevents any serious and exploratory discussions of Mach's principle, and similarly of the contrariwise well established electromagnetic Coulomb interaction between all charged particles in the universe (stemming from Maxwell's first equation, which is in fact Gauss's experimentally established equation for the electric field), is the very negative connotation given to such distance related issues by the almost traditional deprecatory phrase: "spooky" action at a distance.

So no physicists will seriously dare initiate any discussion on this issue nor submit to peer-review any hypothesis in this regard for fear of being ostracized by his colleagues as being a crackpot.

But I have no such fear, so I did not hesitate analyzing all aspects of the proven Coulomb interaction between charged particles, and eventually within the inner structure of localized electromagnetic particles. I did not explore however Mach's Principle that seems to relate to interactions at the macroscopic level, given that my main interest was electromagnetic energy at the elementary particles level. Life is short. We have to reasonably prioritize our interests.

Regarding "rotations" and "rotational drag", I seem to recall that you were intrigued some time in the past by a comment I made that rotating macroscopic bodies can only expend energy as work when forced to artificially rotate, because they were made of elementary massive particles captive on circular orbits about the large body rotation axis, and that consequently, they were individually subject to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics, mandating that each submicroscopic mass expend energy as work to constantly change direction in this manner, which could explain why bodies artificially made to rotate systematically end up slowing down whatever care is taken in isolating them from any friction.

So we can talk of "rotation" of a macroscopic body because they have a measurable volume, but the situation is different for elementary massive particles such as the electron because we have proof that they behave point-like in all scattering encounters, "point-like behavior" meaning that no unbreachable limit is met at any distance from their mutual centers when two electrons are made to directly collide, however close they come to their mutual centers, contrary to protons and neutrons, which we know occupy a physical volume in space.

It is at this point that the notion of "rotation" needs to be reconsidered in their case, because for any object to be able to rotate, this object must physically have a measurable volume, which is not the case for massive electrons.

However, it can be observed that a rotating motion is a "cyclic" process that can be related to a "rotation frequency".

This being said, it can also be observed that the term “frequency” applies to any sort of cyclic motion, be it rotational, translational on a closed orbit or any other type of oscillatory motion, from simple sinusoidal harmonic resonance motion to cyclic translational or transverse reciprocating "swing" between two states. This means that all aspects of angular momentum that we naturally associate with rotating motion can also be applied to reciprocating motion, which in turn allows the "spin" of elementary particles to be hypothesized as possibly corresponding to a reciprocating motion of the magnetic energy concerned without changing in any way the equations that already account for it.

Moreover, considering a reciprocating motion between 2 states directly bring back in the picture the Poynting vector that you mentioned, because the EB product is directly compatible with the idea that the energy of electromagnetic particles could be maintained as permanently localized quanta by such a transverse reciprocating motion between the two observed states.

This is put in perspective in this paper which also describes how the inner LC reciprocating structure of a localized EM photon can be defined as a self-propelling and self-guiding photon, in agreement with de Broglie's hypothesis, that needs no underlying "ether" to exist and propagate:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

In your answer to Sofia, I noted your comment: "The idea was simply that energy may exist in two states, a propagating and a localized one."

I absolutely agree. The following paper describes how a propagating LC photon such as described in the previous paper can be converted to a pair of localized electron-positron each possessing the same internal reciprocating electromagnetic LC structure, titled "The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model":

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

I also looked at your Triple-gyro model document, and you may be surprised to learn that I reached the very same conclusion as you as I analyzed how triads of a mix of electrons and positrons could accelerate via Coulomb interaction, adiabatically increasing their energy, to finally stabilize in a least action electromagnetic equilibrium of proton and neutron known sizes, as described in this paper titled "The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3-Spaces Model":

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

Note also that I mention your experiment and that of Keith in reference to work expenditure similar to the John Blewett experiment with electrons forced to move in perfect circle in the GE Betatron in the 1940's in the following recent paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

thanks for providing us with comprehensive material on your quite impressive alternative approach towards understanding the formation of elementary particles. As a non-theorist I won‘t get too much into detail with comments. I‘m glad to learn, however, that my rather crude and intuitive approach to understanding the proton radius and magnetic moment apparently complies to some extent with your well elaborate line of thinking. It is my impression that we are trying to regard particles as being made of fields and dynamic appearances thereof. This obviously stays in contrast to well known approaches trying to regard fields, in particular the so called “aether“, as something made of virtual particles, or the question whether gravitational interaction is transmitted via particles rather than fields.

Thanks also for reminding me of your earlier statements on rotational drag of large bodies that as you describe may result from orbital movement of elementary particles. In view of the theoretical studies by J.C. Keith on rotational drag of freely spinning rotors, and related experiments, I‘m still impressed by the fact that Keith comes to exactly (!) the same results by considering local centrifugal forces on particles orbiting at the spinning rotor as he does by considering interaction of the orbiting particles with remote masses of the universe, cf. on page 11 of his paper: “The two views can be combined by ascribing the centrifugal forces to a gravitational interaction with the universe.“ I never have seen such a strong argument in support of “Mach‘s Principle“, and experiments apparently confirm the theoretical aspects developed by Keith. From my point of view, therefore, depreciating Mach‘s Principle as “spooky action at a distance“, or similar, must appear as a sign of plain ignorance.

Dear Johan,

Thank you for your appreciation.

Personally, I think that all ideas must be considered if we are to eventually fully understand physical reality. I was particularly intrigued by electromagnetism, so this is what I explored. But we can only benefit if somebody else succeeds in establishing a coherent interaction mechanics from Mach's Principle or any other idea.

Stemming from Maxwell's electromagnetic equations, we have the QFT quantized approach that led to QED, a great tool, and now we have the continuous interaction approach providing mechanical electromagnetic descriptions of the internal resonance structures of localized elementary particles, which could lead in due time to electromagnetism related wave functions.

I found that "convergence" is the best guide towards proper description of physical reality. From this perspective, I see narrow convergence between your conclusions and my own.

Best Regards

André

"electromagnetism related wave functions"

Dear André,

do you think the ideas presented in the annexed paper might comply to some extent with yours?

http://www.ccaesar.com/eng_structure_of_the_electron.html

Dear Johan,

Yes it does comply to a relatively high extent.

I note that Christoph correctly relates the spin to the magnetic aspect of the electron.

But although he seems aware that as the electric fields goes to zero, the magnetic fields reaches maximum, he does not represent the same quantum of energy as reciprocatingly switching from one state to the other as the Poynting vector seems to require.

Other than that, this is possibly one of the closest possible representations of localized electromagnetic energy in the restricted frame of 4D space.

You may have gathered from my papers that completely symmetric electromagnetic representation of localized EM particles seems to require expanding the triple vectorial orthogonal electromagnetic relation to morph into 3 full fledged mutually orthogonal 3D spaces.

Best Regards

André

An attempt to explain matter as a composition of vortical structures in aether was made some time ago by Lord Kelvin with the inspiration provided by Helmholtz and Tait. The theory was even described as the “Victorian Theory of Everything”. Not surprisingly, the idea was rejected because the concept of aether was incompatible with the new physics that emerged after creation of Maxwell theory of electromagnetism and Einstein Special Relativity theory.

The most interesting byproduct of the “vortex atoms” of Lord Kevin is the knot theory that is used today in modern fluid dynamics. Knot classification is elaborated in the following site

http://katlas.org/wiki/Other_Knot_Tables

Some recent research has shown that topological concepts can be helpful in understanding quantum fluids. The problem is further elaborated in the interesting article "Beautiful Losers: Kelvin's Vortex Atoms" by Frank Wilczek. The text is available at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2011/12/beautiful-losers-kelvins-vortex-atoms/

Given the fact that vortex structures are ubiquitous at all levels of the organization of matter, it is indeed an attractive idea to revive the ancient theory of Lord Kelvin using modern concepts. Some of the ideas presented in this thread are a strong indication of such a possibility.

"Beautiful Losers: Kelvin’s Vortex Atoms"

Dear Janusz,

thanks a lot for drawing our attention to the amazing article by Frank Wilczek from where I take the following text:

"Thomson himself, a restless intellect, moved on to gush other ideas, but his friend and colleague Peter Guthrie Tait, enthralled by the vortex atom theory, set to work. Thus inspired, he did pioneering work on the theory of knots, producing a systematic classification of knots with up to 10 crossings."

Interesting to note that the Moebius Ribbon is missing in that classification even though it already incorporates twist, which may be considered as a characteristic feature of knots. The Moebius Ribbon, in fact, is the basic element in Christoph Caesar's powerful model of the electron, see reference below.

http://www.ccaesar.com/eng_structure_of_the_electron.html

“A screw model is developed for photons and fermions to offer a physical representation for the Feynman’s arrow scheme in quantum-electrodynamics. This model interprets intrinsic parameters of particles: spin, rest energy and magnetic moment by self-rotations with the speed of light forming either a helical (boson) or a spherical (fermion) screws.“

Dear all,

the above statement is part of the annexed paper abstract which apparently complies with Christoph Caesar‘s Moebius ribbon model, see previous reference, i.e., with interdependence of propagating and localized field energy.

http://afizikakalandja.blog.hu/2015/07/13/a_screw_model_for_quantum_electrodynamics_from_gravitation_to_quanta

"But although he seems aware that as the electric fields goes to zero, the magnetic fields reaches maximum, he does not represent the same quantum of energy as reciprocatingly switching from one state to the other as the Poynting vector seems to require."

Dear André,

if in view of the above cited model I assume that photons move in a screw motion, i.e. like a bullet, I imagine that electric and magnetic fields do not go to zero but just rotate with respect to the axis of propagation, and the Poynting vector continuously points forward along that axis.

Dear Johan,

Yes. In the screw model, both E and B fields would have to remain constant at a fixed value. This also mathematically satisfies the Poynting vector as well as the de Broglie solution that involves that both fields induce each other in the sense that the same half quantum of energy switches from one state to the other.

However, in the above screw model, the author seems to relate "photon polarization" to its 2-valued spin.

This is not what light polarization is about. In electromagnetism, spin relates to the relative magnetic orientation of the magnetic aspects of elementary particles, either mutually parallel which corresponds to a mutual magnetic repulsion, or mutually anti-parallel which corresponds to mutual magnetic attraction, in the latter case being what explains covalent bound between 2 atoms, and orbital filling by electron pairs.

Spin 1 was introduced to clarify the distinction between bosons and fermions, which makes logical that a spin one 1.022 MeV photon could destabilize into converting into a pair of spin 1/2 electron and positron.

Faraday showed that light can be polarized by a magnetic field in any 360 degree orientation on a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion of light. This screw model doesn't appear to be able to explain this.

Best Regards

André

"Faraday showed that light can be polarized by a magnetic field in any 360 degree orientation on a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion of light. This screw model doesn't appear to be able to explain this."

Dear André,

thanks for your expert comments. Unfortunately, I cannot reply to the polarization issue in adequate manner. I just remember that Faraday rotation relates to linear polarized rather than non-polarized photons.

The basic idea of my previous comment, however, was just whether the srcew model might comply with the twisted Moebius Ribbon model devised by Christoph Caesar when regarding the electron as a screwing electromagnetic wave that is being localized within a circular orbit.

Dear Johan,

You write: "The basic idea of my previous comment, however, was just whether the srcew model might comply with the twisted Moebius Ribbon model devised by Christoph Caesar when regarding the electron as a screwing electromagnetic wave that is being localized within a circular orbit."

Sorry for misunderstanding you question.

My more appropriate answer is yes. I think both models are not in contradiction with each other. They appear to me as two geometric constructs from which the same electromagnetic conclusions can be drawn.

There is also another photon model currently being discussed on academia.edu:

https://www.academia.edu/s/0b8807556f/entangled-double-helix-superluminal-photon-model-defined-by-fine-structure-constant-has-inertial-mass-mec-2#comment_428287

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

thanks for linking us to the academia.edu platform which in view of its huge number of participants and conributions appears to me even more confusing than ResearchGate. I'm generally not that much a friend of theories involving too many degrees of freedom such as, in particular, the "entangled-double-helix-superluminal-photon" model. Chistoph Caesar's model appears attractive as it outputs quite a number of provable features of the electron on the basis of rather simple asumptions. Both models apparently support my initial question about the basic substance of the universe.

“Are fields the basic substance of the universe rather than particles? Particles may be interpreted as field vortices.”

Dear Johan,

I beg to differ! Particulate matter and discreteness as the basis of objective reality has been the position of materialism since the early days of philosophy. Democritus famously said, “The universe consists of atoms and empty space; all else is mere opinion” - “matter in eternal motion” has always been the world view of dialectics. The concept of (matter-less) abstract and continuous “field” as the basis of objective reality has been the representation of divinity and of idealism from the early Greeks (like Permenedes) onwards. Greek idealism and even modern “positivism” deny material existence; it is only an appearance and an illusion (or Maya in Sanskrit). For Kant it is "Unknowable thing-in-itself"! For idealism, the ethereal is the “real”; but it does not have empirical existence! The concept of God arose from this view.

The materialist concept of objective reality specially from the time of Aristotle have guided physics and natural science through its phenomenal development specially during the bourgeois democratic revolution in Europe until its degeneration and regression under monopoly capitalism, by the turn of 20th century, which necessitated the reversion to fundamentalist idealism. Another fundamental factor in this reversion of physics to idealism was the discovery of the quantum phenomena. Discreteness and uncertainty etc. of the quantum world is an anathema for idealism of all kinds. Einstein brought back the notion of “continuous field” of early Greek idealism geometry and idealized mathematics into physics mainly as a reactionary attempt to combat revolutionary quantum phenomena. Also, his idealized mathematics and analytic functions with unlimited extension was possible only if the objective reality is a continuous field. You can apply the principles of symmetry on “continuous field” in any arbitrary way you wish, particles brings in vexing infinities!

Early attempts to develop quantum electrodynamics based on particulate matter by Heisenberg, Dirac et al. was subverted by the incorporation of "wave functions" and “quantum field” theories, inspired by Einsteinian's “continuous field” concept of objective reality and all hell of mathematics driven fantasies broke loose both in the quantum world and cosmology– as we see today in Einsteinian physics! But Einstein himself just one year before his death expressed grave doubt about the "field" concept in a letter (1954) to his close friend Michelle Besso, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

A dialectical perspective (from Heraclitus and Epicurus onwards) always insisted on an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe consisting of discrete matter particles in universal motion; “field” can only be a (secondary) property of matter. In the modern form of dialectics as elaborated by Hegel and his philosophy of space-time-matter-motion; dialectics can give the essential basis for an understanding of the quantum world and the virtual particles; along with the view of the infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe.

I have made some humble attempts through some published booklets, and articles to project the dialectical perspective of the universe, which necessarily is the exact opposite of the Einstein inspired view and fundamentally opposed to the “field” concept of idealism: Few are listed below:

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

“The universe consists of atoms and empty space; all else is mere opinion”

Dear Abdul,

thanks for your impressive philosophical contribution that I agree upon in several aspects. I'm afraid, however, that the above statement of famous ancient Democritus still governs and blocks the minds of today's cosmological mainstream scientists. Otherwise I cannot explain why nobody is taken seriously who publicly refers to the ideas of Isaac Newton (Newton's bucket) and Ernst Mach (Mach's Principle) about local effects due to interaction with remote masses of the universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_at_all_to_discuss_on_cosmology_without_taking_into_account_the_influence_of_remote_masses

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

JKF> "Otherwise I cannot explain why nobody is taken seriously who publicly refers to the ideas of Isaac Newton (Newton's bucket) and Ernst Mach (Mach's Principle) about local effects due to interaction with remote masses of the universe."

Dear Johan,

Thanks for your response. I did not have the opportunity to go through the links you provided and I have to be brief for now.

Just off hand, I have to say that the exact opposite in fact is the case, than what you imply in the above quote. Einstein was very much attached to Mach and his principle. As I discussed in my article "The Infinite" (linked in my comment above), and as the science historian Helge Kragh reported, Einstein arbitrarily decided on a finite universe as a premise; instead of an infinite one. Because, if Mach’s principle is followed, then an infinite universe means that the inertia and the mass of atoms etc.also become infinite. To keep the world as we see it now (inertia, mass, etc.); all Mach based cosmologies must have the universe started at a finite past and also must have a finite extension. In my view this (finite universe) is the biggest fault, limitation and the mistake of modern official cosmology. In my humble opinion, I do not see how they can overcome all these paradoxes, confusions, mathematics based fantasies, fairy tales and their limitless "proofs" of Big Bang, Inflation etc. (that are feeding on themselves!) of modern cosmology without a dialectical perspective of the universe. Please see my last few comments in the following forum that I initiated: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

Also Hoyle-Narlikar discredited "Steady State" and "variable mass" theories were based on the Machian principle. So Mach is not ignored at all! Regards, Abdul

Dear Johan,

I agree with you about academia.edu. Very popular, but paying if you want to benefit from all options.

I also go for the simplest models that explain the most observed characteristics of fundamental energy and stable elementary particles.

Best Regards

André

"all Mach based cosmologies must have the universe started at a finite past and also must have a finite extension."

Dear Abdul,

I rather tend to the idea of an infinite universe with limited distance of view, see reference below. This apparently would comply with Mach's Principle in case that not only view but also field interaction be spatially limited at R ~ GM/c2.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_living_at_the_joint_periphery_of_3K_Holes_with_radius_R_GM_c2

Dear Johan,

I am not sure what you mean by “limited distance of view” and what your calculated value of GM/c2 would be. Our telescopes can already see super-clusters of galaxies up to a radius of more than 14 bly (do not remember the actual figure), well beyond the limit set by the so-called Big Bang paradigm!

And also, I find no rationale why and on what ground you want to set an arbitrary limit. Mach's principle is only a hypothesis without any empirical basis! I understand that this way you can have infinite island universes (or multi-verses) that are isolated and have no connection with the other ones. But one can also conceive of such island universes without any arbitrary and in my view un-necessary limits that you propose! My article, “The Infinite” explains how Hegel views the Infinite as a contradiction (the "unity of the opposites") of the finite and the infinite and a continuous and never-ending resolution of this contradiction as the manifestation of the infinite universe that has no limit in space and time.

"I am not sure what you mean by “limited distance of view” and what your calculated value of GM/c2 would be."

Dear Abdul,

in view of a theory on rotational drag of freely spinning rotors due to retarded gravitational forces as developed by James C. Keith (see first reference below) and related experiments (2nd reference), I refer to the Schwarzschild radius of the universe which essentially matches with the maximum distance of view.

"Mach's principle is only a hypothesis without any empirical basis!"

Let me just repeat what I have posted earlier in the present discussion:

“Keith comes to exactly (!) the same results by considering local centrifugal forces on particles orbiting at the spinning rotor as he does by considering interaction of the orbiting particles with remote masses of the universe, cf. on page 11 of his paper: “The two views can be combined by ascribing the centrifugal forces to a gravitational interaction with the universe.“ I never have seen such a strong argument in support of “Mach‘s Principle“, and experiments apparently confirm the theoretical aspects developed by Keith.“

Dear Johan,

I am impressed by your interest and study on Machism and its possible relevance for the modern cosmology. But I think it is a forgotten issue by now; because GR dispensed with any force at all; not to speak of centrifugal force. Newton’s gravitation theory invokes universal attraction, so the question of centrifugal force does not arise. Mach’s thought experiment of rotating bucket with water is replete with problems! You need an observer to perform this experiment in an “empty” universe and moreover you have somehow to hang the bucket from a "support" etc. how can you do these? In any case, Schwarzschild radius is based on GR; you have to assume the validity of GR itself, first!

But I share your concern for the need of a centrifugal force in cosmology; which both universal gravitation and “free fall” totally negates. In my view, this is the major conceptual defect of the modern theories of gravity and the root of the crisis in cosmology. A dialectical view considers gravitation as a contradiction (like anything else!) between an attractive force and a repulsive force inherent in matter itself. In addition for the tendency to "attract"; matter is endowed with inherent and intrinsic motion and hence a tendency to “fly away” as is to “fall in”. For dialectics, “There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter”. The apparently stable configurations of the cosmic bodies are only conditional and temporary. The tug of war (contradiction) between “falling in” and “flying away” (as expressed by Hegel and Marx) determines the outcome at any particular time and also any particular configuration. Please see my article on this issue and a new interpretation of Kepler’s laws:

Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

"In any case, Schwarzschild radius is based on GR"

Dear Abdul,

is escape velocity a matter of GR as well?

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?156382-Escape-Velocity-and-the-Schwarzschild-Radius

A more general question: Do you prefer the philosophical approach or experiments to solve open questions in physical science?

For an answer you need to have a good agreement of the vacuum which has not yet been achieved.

Fields polarize the vacuum in one way or another. The polarization does not continue after the field is removed. The fields can be quantized because their sources are quantized, suggesting that the vacuum can also be quantized on a small scale.

In general the fields can exist in a region that is free of particles, but the field generator must have particles acting in it.

Fields hold particles together and govern their interactions.

I don't believe nature could exist with only fields or only particles. Particles could be represented as special regions in fields of high energy density as Einstein suggested in 1949. In that context the fields are more fundamental but cannot exist with out energy concentrations doing the functions of particles.

JKF> “A more general question: Do you prefer the philosophical approach or experiments to solve open questions in physical science?”

Dear Johan,

I am somewhat surprised that you ask me this question; it is as if I do not care for science and rely only on philosophy! My article on the conceptual defects of the prevailing theories of gravity (linked above) is based on data from NASA and on a dialectical perspective. Is it any less “physical science” and less “experimental” than any other?

For me, it is not a question of one or the other, but both together. Of course, empirical knowledge is the primary factor, philosophy (theory) is an abstraction (distillation) of the essence - the summation of the mountain of empirical facts into useful concepts and is an "after-thought". Remember Hegel’s owl of Minerva?: “When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.”

I am sorry that I am showing this level of sensitivity to your question to me, but I find it amusing that I am being accused by many physicists of doing philosophy and not science even in my scientific work and in my criticism of mathematical idealism based Einsteinian physics; simply because I have basis on dialectical philosophy and not on the philosophy of causality – the stale pabulum or baby food on which official physics thrives! This is the only nutrition this “science” knows , takes it for granted as the only normal thing and has become used to it as a matter of habit and reacts childishly to any better nutrition!

I must say that it is “New Physics” since Einstein that is unscientific; because it has retreated back to impotent early Greek mathematical idealism, in face of the revolutionary developments in physics itself! This “physics” is based on pure mathematical and philosophical axioms and is unscientific, because it gives priority to “abstract thought” than on “matter”! Matter and motion has been the primary elements of physics since its early history but was based on the world view of causality. The breakdown of causality with the recognition of the quantum phenomena, now makes “New Physics” (since Einstein) to retreat to the mysticism of “unknowable thing-in-itself” of Immanuel Kant and timidly declare that “Matter in a Myth”. Hence like Kant the “logical categories” of ideal mathematics and philosophical axiomatic truths must be imposed on Nature and experiments must “prove” these truths! And please do not bring the question of “proofs” until you read my comments in the following forum: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

I am not making up things, Einstein could not be more specific as the two following selected quotes will show: 1. “Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. … In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed” A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, Translated by Alan Harris from “Mein Weltbild, Quedro Verlag, Amsterdam, 1933), The Wisdom Library, N.Y., p48 – 49, (1934).

2. “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.

How much more “philosophy” than this there can be in physics? But as I quoted Einstein in my comment above, by the end of his life Einstein had grave doubt about the concept of “continuous field” as the basis of objective reality!

So, where do you and modern official physics based on your philosophy of causality stand now and from where do you get matter and motion, escape velocity, Schwarzschild radius, so on and so forth? You must bring these through the back door using idealized mathematics – a magical carpet that can be used for anything and everything and you can also take flights of any fantasies as is done in modern cosmology! I understand that you are impressed with James C. Keith’s derivation of Schwarzschild radius based on “the rotational drag of freely spinning rotors due to retarded gravitational forces” and Mach’s principle. But I can give you reference of other people who obtained similar solutions, like the one by W.W.W. Engelhardt, who has given a “physical solution for free fall by taking into account the dependence of mass on velocity in Newton’s gravitational law as adopted in the physics of accelerators”.VC2017 Physics Essays Publication.[http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-30.3.294] But here also, Dr. Engelhardt has to depend on the magic of the “velocity dependent mass” of SR! For a very long discussion on the theories of relativity please see the following forum by Dr. Engelhardt: Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory

Unfortunately, this will be my last comment in this forum. Cheers, Abdul

Dear Jerry,

Shouldn't it be the "energy" which would be amenable to be "polarized" and "quantized" as it moves in "vacuum" instead of the underlying vacuum?

Besides, seems to me that "fields" are descriptive concepts geometrically and mathematically representing the potential force/energy gradient at maximum intensity at a given particle hypothetical point-like location, that allow actual energy calculation if a second particle is located at a given distance from the first.

Best Regards

André

"Shouldn't it be the "energy" which would be amenable to be "polarized" and "quantized" as it moves in "vacuum" instead of the underlying vacuum?"

Dear André,

in view of interaction with remote masses, might it not even be potential energy?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions

Dear Johan,

You write: "in view of interaction with remote masses, might it not even be potential energy?"

The concept of "potential energy" is defined differently in electromagnetism than in classical/relativistic mechanics and in Quantum Mechanics.

In classical/relativistic mechanics, it is related to the concept of momentum by means of the Principle of energy conservation. When a body is in motion, its "momentum-sustaining-kinetic-energy" is deemed to physically exist, and is defined as a function of the body's velocity.

If the body motion is being slowed down to zero velocity, its motion-sustaining-kinetic-energy is deemed to convert to "non-physically-existing-potential-energy" and remain in that state until the body is set in motion again, which reconverts its "non-physically-existing-potential-energy" into "physically-existing-kinetic-energy" again". That's the traditional principle of energy conservation.

The same concept has been carried over in the definitions of the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian used in QM.

In electromagnetism, the idea of "potential energy" is related to Gauss's definition of the electric field gradient, which is centered at maximum intensity at a point-like unit charge, such as the electric charge of the electron. It can be conceptualized that if another electric unit charge is made to appear anywhere at any given distance from the first, the Coulomb law allows to calculate the "really-existing-kinetic-energy" that is adiabatically induced in each charge as a function of this distance.

But in this context, there is not conversion possible to the "potential energy" concept whether both charges move or not, for as long as both particles exist, whether the distance varies between them or not, kinetic energy will "adiabatically vary" in them as a function of this distance.

If you remove the second electric charge, then the "potential energy" is the plenum of all possible real-kinetic-energy values that "could" exist if a second electric charge was introduced anywhere in the field gradient. In other words, in electromagnetism, potential energy is not related to the traditional conservation principle but to the electric field gradient when only one electric charge is considered.

So from the electromagnetic perspective, there can be no connection between potential energy and remote masses, given that it exists only if only one mass is conceptualized. If more than one body is present, then the only type of energy that can exist is kinetic-energy, and it can only vary adiabatically without converting to any concept of "potential energy" as a function of the distance between them, whether this distance varies or not.

Best Regards

André

Are fields the basic substance of the universe rather than particles?

It all depends on the ontology adopted in the formulation of the assessment.

Ultimately, there will an ‘either’ ‘or’ outcome if you maintain the assumption/sanctity of the 3rdparty ontology. If the assumption in the question is removed it can be rephrased.

What base conditions are required for substance to emerge?

We can then enquire,

To what degree are these base conditions reflected in our make-up?

Is ‘stuff’ an expression of a form of surface tension existing between the duality of conditions that gives rise to its possibility?

Are photons free moving agents that comply with both aspects of the duality: the carrier of the surface tension. EMR.

Is gravity a further expression/translation of this surface tension?

Is the phenomenon of vision an inference drawn from the expression of the duality?

"Are fields the basic substance of the universe rather than particles?"

I just became aware of an exciting article authored back in 2012 by Art Hobson, see reference below, who comes virtually to the same conclusion on the basis of much more profound theoretical arguments.

Article There are no particles, there are only fields

I think I have previously come across this well constructed paper/argument. A great case, however if you adopt another approach it's possible to be convinced of the alternative? The ‘realty’ issue lies not with one or the other but in that both are required for US to infer reality using what both are able to reveal. I don’t buy the ‘either or’ question. Moving on requires inference.

We need to interrogate both but then stand back and allow reality to form. The phenomenon of vision works on this basis; it's a controlled hallucination. Observation is a controlled hallucination and is not derived from a projected record from instrumentation. This either/or ‘approach’ to the investigation of reality gives rise to the measurement problem. Reality is not going to emerge from a conceptualisation drawn from the adoption of one approach over another using more accurate instrumentation.

Wave particle duality is not telling us that matter is both a wave and a particle, it’s telling us that there is a fundamental duality withinthe fabric of our universe and that some free moving particles (baryonic matter) are influenced by both conditions. It’s this specialist ‘foot in both camps’ scenario that sets up the situation where we can in specific controlled circumstances see the stuff ‘perform’ in different ways. Ie. the demarcation (zone?) between the conditions (sets) is crossed by the experimental set-up. We have to ask, “what do the records obtained in these circumstances ‘mean’ to us.”

We are setting these particular situations up with out understanding that the experiment straddles the two conditions. We presume that we don’t need to consider what the set-up of experiment is preconditioning about the terms of the encounter and hence the results obtained. We assume direct objectivity in and through all circumstances without having to think about what our status is in relation to the status of what’s occurring. Everything scales through..right?

This is clearly not the case? There is a situation of contingentandnon-contingentexperimentation where we, as macro bodies, aredirectly aligned with what’s occurring and then we change the terms of the experiment that actually change our status with respect to what’s occurring. In these circumstances we are only indirectly linked to the encounter and hence the record obtained in that condition. The experiment took place in an adjacent room! These specialist ‘particles’ with a foot in both camps have the ability to reveal aspects about the condition we are one step removed from to but on which we depend. This potential can only be realised if we understand what’s going on.

Having said (or speculated!) all that, it’s clear to me that the non-contingent, indirect record from the micro dark realm (whatever) tells us about the more foundational state from which the matter state of particles and the macro condition arises. There is a lot of it that remains ‘dark’. Stuck here in macro land we will only encounter fields as we send our probes in and make records. But we do need to acknowledge that the particles from which we are constituted do formpart of the overall dynamics.

If we can get our heads around this then we can start to contemplate what the stuff that’s indirect to our condition makes of us?!