Raphael Neelamkavil In order to understand this question we have to have a really good understanding of the nature of mass and its underlying cause.

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

I take the view that the cause of gravitational mass is the curvature of Spacetime. This in turn is caused by the fact that matter particles (protons neutrons and electrons) are looped waves in the medium of space.

So matter causes Spacetime curvature. On the other hand radiation such as light or electromagnetic waves are waves in the medium of space travelling at speed c. They do not leave behind any residual curvature of Spacetime but as they pass they do cause compression and expansion of the medium by a tiny amount.

When we talk about mass we usually mean rest mass and light has zero rest mass because it is travelling at speed c. If on the other hand we talk about energy then light has energy given by E=hf.

Richard

Richard Lewis,

First of all, "the cause of gravitational mass is the curvature of Spacetime", or gravitational mass is the cause of the curvature of spacetime?

If I say that the measurement obtained of the percentage of passes in the schools in the nation is 99%, will that be the cause of the passing of 99% of students in the schools in the nation?

How can the mathematical explanation become the cause of the physical force? Does gravitation not exist, or does spacetime not exist as physical beings? Does only gravitational mass "exist", or gravitational waves? In any case, you said EM is made up of waves!

You say: "So, matter causes Spacetime curvature." According to you, matter exists, I believe. Does spacetime exist separately or as the measuremental aspect of physical matter? Now, does gravitation come from existent physical matter, or gravitation is issued by the measurement of physical matter (including gravitational) processes?

Again, you say: "On the other hand radiation such as light or electromagnetic waves are waves in the medium of space travelling at speed c."

Are these things (radiation, such as EM waves, [and waves themselves!]) really in the medium of space? But you said that gravitational mass is caused by spacetime curvature!

And, you say: "When we talk about mass we usually mean rest mass and light has zero rest mass because it is travelling at speed c."

In fact, the concept of zero rest mass is calculated and created in dependence on the speed c! This is why zero rest mass became an imaginative notion not realized in the reality of possession of motion by any propagation. There is no absolute rest at all..! Hence, what is the use of speaking of zero rest mass, and that too based on the very criterial velocity by which we decide the notion of zero rest mass?

IN MY OPINION, THE CONCEPTS OF ZERO REST MASS AND MASSLESS ENERGY WAVICLES / PARTICLES ARE SOME OF THE BLUNDERS OF THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS.

You mean photons i think

Richard Lewis, I had expected a reply from you on what we have been discussing here.

When I ask whether any particle at zero rest mass has been detected experimentally, the answer is No, and they give theoretical / mathematical reasons for the EXISTENCE OF REST MASS. Let this be so.

But most physicists start being on the side of directly experimental results when one speaks of supposing the various cases of content of the cosmos: (1) finite and (2) infinite!

Photons seem to be a perfect match to the question....Afirmative answer.

Photons are say 2 mt long wave trains moving at c. If you are standing still recieving one

they hit within an extremly short time, ie seem particles also. Zero rest mass.

They seem particles, but mathematically and in some sense where time is totally ignored, and then one alleges the time back to it. This need not EXACTLY be the case, since the wave-form could better be defined mathematically as (1) at certain points elongated to almost the purely mathematical wave-form and (2) at certain other points almost completely bottle-necked as to seem like a mathematical particle.

In this case, the mathematical points defined between the two would be between mathematical wave and mathematical particle.

But this need not mean that the whole physical wave is an absolutely continuously defined propagation. Only mathematically can it be defined as absolutely continuous. There is some mathematically spatiotemporal discreteness between the states / stages of pure wave and pure particle. This is then the real wavicle.

Please note, hence, that the question of zero rest mass is a mathematical creation not met exactly at any moment in the physical wavicle. Moreover, the wavicle is not two-dimensional but three-dimensional in its statically mathematical diagram.

Of course there is some natural width to photon energies , because the tapering at the ends of a wave train

make for some variation in the wave length or frequency. Given a typical time you can work it from the uncertainty principle, or the number of wave lengths fitting the wave train. The more, the better frequency is defined.

Mathematics is used in approximation, not exact fit.

Juan Weisz, very good, and thanks.

I have been trying to work out the possible rational presuppositions of such physical theories and ground them in just a few from which these seem possibly derivative. This does not mean that I finalize upon anything as the only possible foundations, but try to further get opinions and then think of them in my own ways in order to make whatever further changes I can think of.

I call it physical ontology. Thus, for example, the ultimate extended nature of all existents including energy wavicles. If they are extended, they have parts. Not infinitesimal parts but instead near-infinitesimal parts. However small we view them to be, they are near-infinitesimal -- and however minute the temporal extent in which they are supposed to be.

I believe you will be able to comment on this. Thanks.

Yes, photon or phonon energies are really rather small, microscopic. Thats part of the difficulty to visualize.

Waves are a way to understand the form of energy which passes from one particle with mass to another. That energy is conceived as a coherent thing of itself, but it can also be understood as particles trading energy to their neighbors. In other words: it is the energy which travels across particles that themselves do not move to follow the wave. Wave–particle duality is something else, and it only occurs on the quantum scale.

Reza Sanaye, you deserve a hundred times congratulations for this argument. I have been working on this for years (in my book-length publications), and many in the physics industry have jeered at me. I just kept quiet and continued with an open mind.

Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil

You are a deep man ,,,,,

Just shove off undeserved criticism AND do your own job . . . . .. . .

Jealousy and fault-finding are rampant ; ; ; ; ;

reza

Reza Sanaye, I invite your attention to an opinion that Valeriy Pakulin has expressed and my response in the following (a difficult matter to understand!):

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Gravitation_or_Electromagnetism_cosmologically_more_important#view=6439891bba036ebb1e054acf/1

Read a conversation between Willy Verhiest and me, in:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology/3

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I don't claim anything but observe.

For an observer on earth with gravity G c is always constant in vacuo but c is infinite at zero G at very long distances from the observer. You can call that the limit of the universe as observable from the earth which is not equal to the total universe. If the earth had double mass with a double G the observable universe would be double.

Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c. For a photon the observer is nearing it at -c so total time is zero = meaningless. It is impossible from the local observation of photons or other EM waves to determine a beginning or an extension or limit of the total universe. Stop searching celestial mirrors. There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth.

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

1 minute ago

Willy Verhiest,

In the observations you have made above, notice how overstretching the relativistic paradigm confounds the observer and theoretician. If the gravity of the earth is G, then c is constant in vacuo. But c increases relativistically to infinity at 0 G at very long distances from the observer. (Or, at the centre of the earth?) Now, you say, if the earth had double the mass, it has 2G. The the observable universe will be at double the distance in almost a spherical manner everywhere.

Should we then say that our observationally relativistic measurements must be the same as what an earth at one spot at the periphery of the universe (not merely of the observable limits of the universe) would notice?

If observationally the reach of observation from an earth of G is a certain A, then should c be zero at the observational limits you spoke of, or at some other? How do you insist that G will be zero there? Observationally from the Relativity standpoint of observation from the earth, or from yet another specific Relativity standpoint of observation?

Will the same c be observable or experienceable for an earth at the peripheries of a finite-content universe? Or, will it be something different? Of course, relativistically it should differ widely for the stipulated earth (observational starting point). But is it merely because I observe / calculate from my earth (of G) some special value for c at that point where the earth at the periphery is situated? Perhaps it will be a certain value close to infinity or really infinity?

But asymptotic approach math does not permit that! No zero or infinity is ever reached!

Hence, the c will be near infinity! Will this be real? Relativistically from our earth, of course real. But real also for an earth there, where the value is supposed to be a certain near-infinie value for our earth?

Now you may again use relativity theory and assert it to be so. Bu the earth at the periphery will not observe it so!

Now you may say that we have a universe with an infinite-periphery (strictly, non-finite or potentially infinite periphery) universe with a finite volume and content! Of course, you can choose such a math, just as Einstein chose the Riemannian geometry for the finite-content universe, without mentioning the possibility of a different Generalized General Theory of Relativity (GGTR) for an infinite-content cosmos!

Now you see how misleading it will be, if you assume for a spot at the periphery of the universe the same relativistic spatial and temporal measurements, the same measuremental differentiation at velocity (also density, mass, etc.) as measured from the earth?

In short, to deal with the whole of the cosmos -- if it is of infinite content -- we need a highly generalized GTR. Now, if you ask me what that GGTR is, I cannot give it to you, because I have not formulated it. (I am sure that you will not ask me to shut up in that case, because we both are finite-brained creatures!)

And if we have only a finite-content universe, the relativistic measuremental variation from one region to the other with respect to our earth should also mislead the earth at the periphery of such a universe. THIS IS THE CASE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF.

And so on....

In the cases where the values are infinity, zero, etc. that I mentioned above, there may be further confusions. What I mean is: Please accept that there will be confusions in what I mentioned above, in all the specific values that I mentioned above. These are due to human errors. I am happy to accept corrections and suggestions.

Let me make a general suggestion: GTR is to be taken as already very erroneous if we tend to consider other universes as existent and apply the same measuremental criteria from any two universes relatively simultaneously. Of course, the meaning of time will be different for both the universes. Not of time, but of the measurements of time, because the reference frames will differ. Moreover, there is no simultaneity of any absolute kind in the universe between any two different points of spacetime.

Please note also that this statement above already presupposes a standpoint of view or measurement that considers the relativistic measurements from one spot in the universe as non-absolute from another spot.

Now you see how well one can make erroneous statements by assuming universality to Relativity: You said, "Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c." And you said: "There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth." Both these are very bad statements in my opinion. Why? Not that time will have no meaning, but specific temporal measurements will differ for a photon if measured from various frameworks. Similarly, not that there are only local time and local space, but there are only local temporal and spatial measurements with respect to respective frameworks. Naturally!

And the final advise is difficult to grasp: "Stop searching (for) celestial mirrors." I did not search for celestial mirrors. I asked whether a celestial body at the periphery of an individual universe will have gravitational effect to all its sides, or only to the sides other than the direction to the outer periphery of that one universe. And I suggested that if that celestial body is not able to exercise gravitation to the outer aspect of the universe, then there must be a mirror or mirrors there to reflect all the gravitation and EM being propagated off. That was not meant to assert that there are mirrors there, you know!

Now, insisting that all that happens everywhere in our local universe or in a neighbouring universe should be according to the measuremental values assigned to space, time, c, G, etc. from the criterial viewpoint of observation from the earth or from the centre of the universe, or any other point.... This is a nonsense in my opinion. This is a very misleading system of physical criteria wrought in by misinterpretations and stretching of the Relativistic viewpoint.

Another observation: Absolutizing the Relativitiy Theory for all observational points of "space" is in my opinion physically fallacious.

A suggestion to ponder: Have you noticed how, in the Lorentz factor in STR, the velocity of an object is compared with the velocity c? This means that we stipulate c to be the criterial velocity in our case, because we observe anything at luminal velocity. But then, if v is increased to approach c, then we get paradoxes in any equation. Does this mean that experimentally fixed velocity of light should be absolute? Or, does it mean that the paradoxes result because we have compared (in the Lorentz factor) v with c? And should we at all pronounce that c is the only criterial velocity in the universe?

If an electron at spacetime A loses a certain number of quanta of energy, naturally its total energy has come down. However well it is accelerated later, another energy that has not lost so many quanta of energy, if accelerated similarly, might be at a better position in energy content than the former.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances.

This shows that no electron will be identical in all its properties (in itself) with any other. Our description of these properties will surely be as identical. But this is for pragmatic purposes!

As about energy OR quanta of energy preservation ;

Spacetime itself is comprised of some foliation of sub-manifolds in which case spacetime turns out to be an entity of stationary nature which can be known only on those Locales where conservation of energy would no longer be deemed sacrosanct. The Many-Worlds interpretation on the energy flow within a certain universe links Noether (local) symmetries to explicit data flux that is acting equivalent to energy contributions. For instance, as of a spinning particle, we may “measure” a certain position or spin. However, measuring things in systems causes changes in wavefunctions. The measured spin mentioned above gets into ANOTHER amplitude of probability. As a consequence, the concept of energy in quantum physics differs relatively significantly from the ordinary one we generally bear in mind. This spells that there is likelihood of foliating spacetime with a time parameter corresponding to surfaces where energy is not conserved.

It is impossible to come to collapse of mathematical superpositions on energy levels where no prediction can be made of the number of times we may possibly decide to do measurements. And you certainly know that measurements do not corroborate each other.

Reza

"Spacetime itself is comprised of some foliation of sub-manifolds". But such sub-manifolds are mathematical. Any proof to show that they are not mathematical? If mathematical, then do these sub-manifolds exist like physical sub-manifolds in physical things?

If not, then spacetime is not an existent material thing or totality of things and sub-manifolds.

If the answer is yes, then this has to be proved not mathematically, but physically.

Raphael Neelamkavil

" "Spacetime itself is comprised of some foliation of sub-manifolds". But such sub-manifolds are mathematical. Any proof to show that they are not mathematical? If mathematical, then do these sub-manifolds exist like physical sub-manifolds in physical things?

If not, then spacetime is not an existent material thing or totality of things and sub-manifolds.

If the answer is yes, then this has to be proved not mathematically, but physically. " "

Which means that the whole CONSTRUCTS of General Relativity and Quantum Physics ( both ) are mathematical ... Not Physicalitic objects ... This is the nearly direct result of German Idealism [ started by Kant ].

{ REZa }

This is not German Idealism. Kant did it much differently.

If what the mathematics says is as such there outside, then space and time will be different existents. This seems to be what your intervention meant. But Kant did not call space and time as existents.

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

Richard Lewis added a reply

6 hours ago

Raphael Neelamkavil This is a very good point about the variable energy of the electron. All electrons will have energy given by E=hf where f is the frequency of the looped wave.

Where it is a free electron the energy is continuously variable. Where it is an electron bound to an atom the energy is restricted to specific energy levels. This is the cause of the quantisation of light.

The energy of the photon is h(f2-f1) when the electron moves from energy level 2 to 1.

Also for all matter particles the energy and frequency increase by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when moving with velocity v relative to the space rest frame.

This paper about the hydrogen bond includes a description of the electron as a looped wave in the medium of space.

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

5 hours ago

Richard Lewis, thanks. I will read the article given.

Practically nobody noticed this discussion of mine. So I put it in some other discussions too. But none read it or none responded. They all know much better.

… Read more

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

7 minutes ago

If the case of measurements of values regarding an electron is such, what about the very Planck constant? Is it not a proportionality? If the masses, energies, etc. of each electron should be different from those of all others, will the constant proportionality be constant or relatively constant?

Clearly, the range of values of the proportionality will differ from universe to universe, because of the varying densities of each universe. And we sit here thinking that these are all physical laws applicable to all universes!

I believe that most physical laws are relative to the specific universe or groups of universes. But there must be pre-physical laws. WHICH ARE THEY? ANYONE HAS GUESSES?

Non-sameness of repetitive experimental settings are another example of Kantian-originated Relative [ non-absolute idealistic ] states of spatiality and temporality . In cases where physicists are , unfortunately , not able to understand that a "thing" { ding(e) } differs from itself ---in differing experimental designs ---- then :

Having assigned ontological status by speculative diktat to the most extreme degree of formal abstraction, space 'in itself', defined as infinite, can possibly possess no shape in that it has no content. It may be assigned neither form, nor orientation, nor direction. Drifting Differing frames are almost totally RELATIVE to one another .

REZA

Reza Sanaye, very good. Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil

you are welcome ...........

i am learning from U ;;;;;;;

No, Reza Sanaye! You are much more advanced than I am in physics n math! I may have more experience in the philosophy of physics, of course. I accept that as a possibility. But I am not sure of that too.....

Richard, Rafael

Notice that E=hf is not an energy for an electron.

Its properly a transition or photon energy between the energy states of an electron in an atom,

or a transition energy between nuclear levels in a nucleous.

In a Hydrogen atom the energy states are given by E(n) = -R/(nn)

where n is an integer and R is the Ryberg constant. The transition energies emerge between

differences in this energy from one state n to another labeled m

E(n) - E(m) = h f(n,m)

The frequency is that of light and E=pc =(h/lambda) c =(h/lambda)(lambda/T) =h/T =hf

for a photon!

The total energy of a free electron is E=mcc approximately

m(0)cc +pp/2(m(0) at slow speed. Then in quantum terms you may use p=h/lambda = hbar k

within this formula.

Juan Weisz, thanks. Very clear.

True that I did not discuss any of these. It is only because my purpose was to discuss a point related to -- in the backdrop of -- these details.

Thanks a lot.

Raphael

WHAT ARE VIRTUALS IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES?

CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.

Existents in Extension and Change are physical, not virtual. Space and time are just the epistemic notions of the physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively.

A DENOTABLE has reference to something that either (1) has physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in bodily processes but are not themselves a physical body (e.g., potential energy), or (3) is non-real, non-existent and just a mere notion (say, a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics absolutely different from the existent physical world).

(1) belong to existents. They are existent Realities. They are matter-energy in content. (2) belong to non-existent but theoretically necessary Realities. (3) are nothing, vacuous!

DIFFERENCE between non-existent, real virtual, and existent denotables:

Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but need not have Categorial characteristics. Existent denotables have Categories (characteristics) and properties. These are Extension and Change.

Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from actual existents. They are called unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and are removed from membership in virtuals.

Theories yield unobservables (elctrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.

Note: properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics (Categories). Instead, they are concatenations of Ontological Universals.

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations.

As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties, but the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change. Virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to lacunae in rational imagination.

Discussion in ResearchGate:

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

Are they , these virtual things , to be so easily applied in various explanations AND computations in different arenas of today's physics ??

Reza Sanaye, you have asked a very difficult question. Today, as you know, there are physicists, "informaticians", philosophers, and futurologist-management specialists who use these virtuals. Other areas where these are more at use are literature, film, and other media etc.

But in my opinion, none has so far developed a full-fledged system of physically tenable thought that will explain these things. See the ease with which phycists and cosmologists speak of dark energy.

My effort (especially in my next book) will be to develop such a system -- better, something that I feel is good enough. History is to judge....

Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?

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

I have revised the basic text of the following discussion substantially:

Criteria to Differentiate between Virtuals and Existents in Scientific Theories

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

they can only be relatively massless ............

for instance , non-trivial cubic interaction vertices for massive spin-2 particles are phononic energy wavicles : they are mostly deemed to be massless relative to spin-2's that have tangible manifoldic interactivities with gravitation ..............

And if the relatively achieved zero (rest) mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".

This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the most general accessible values of processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.

But I forgot to write it in the book. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But it is as I formulated the present post that I realized that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it. Thanks, Reza Sanaye.

The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero quantity in a relativistic manner or otherwise. I have shown in the book of 2018 that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.

I decided to add the above reply of mine to the lead-text of this discussion.

distribution of matter-energy content on a locally bound space can potentially act as as a distinct symmetry operator , where it might be shown that there are many more structural symmetries than are currently recognized in right- or left-handed helices, spirals, and in antidistorted structures composed equally of rotations of both handedness. For example, one can show that many antidistorted mass localities possess twice the number of symmetry elements as conventionally identified. What led to such an investigation is actually the following: let X=x1,x2,... be a sequence of infinitely many variables, Y=y1,y2,... also another sequence, does R[X] isomorphic to (R[X])[Y]? In other words, is a polynomial ring over a polynomial ring, both with infinitely many variables, isomorphic to the polynomial ring we started with? so I guess the answer is yes, now to-some-degree by your explanations , Dear Mr Raphael Neelamkavil

Thanks. Very good.

Waves can be without mass only if they also are without energy.

Regards

Thanks. Sorry for the quick formulation. I have corrected it in the lead-text of this discussion. Soon I will correct it also in the above post.

In this context, kindly read this article that appeared in my mobile just now and give your opinions:

Physicists Conduct The Most Massive Test Ever of The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-conduct-the-most-massive-test-ever-of-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox

What about this conversation?

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

22 minutes ago

Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitational waves are..."

Gravitational waves are oscillations of a cosmic medium of gravitational nature. This medium overcompensates the negative energy density E of gravitiational fields. (E= -g²/(8πG)). It is omnipresent with a pressure, which equals E and a mass density which equals E/c². According to wave theory this medium supports compressional waves with a propagation velocity c.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

4 minutes ago

The negative energy you speak of in theory is not an energy that has a negative effect on matter-energy. It is negative due to the math involved. The notion of omnipresence should now be clarified and the reason for gravitation being an omnipresent God should be given. If not so omnipresent, but here less and there more, then the reason should not be just a theoretical need, but instead, a real existence of gravitation (as gravitons) here less and there more!

I feel that you are trying to cover up the non-commitment to gravitation's extra-theoretical and existence. Covering it up perhaps in the theoretical necessities in the form of a negative substitute for some missing form of energy?

Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?

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

Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

Relatively Massless : As follows :

The parity inversion makes it a rule that the transformation on all particles corresponds to the antiparticles. Sign changes of all (internal-parasymmetric) quantum numbers leave mass, momentum and energy front density absolutely unaffected. EM and strong interaction obey C*-para_symmetry, while weak interaction clearly violates C*-para_symmetry. It also occurs to me that one could derive parity from Maxwell's equations, although that might be a bit of a stretch, since they are of course classical. It also occurs to me that one could assign a value of -1 to the parity, which is merely a convention.

Experimentally, the parity of photons is a matter of convention and is not determined by experiment. Also that it is sometimes 1 and sometimes -1 and that it is actually undefined since {P, → } = 0 and the photon always has nonzero momentum. Parity inversion [para]symmetry, like most fundamental things in modern physics, arises from a symmetry principle, namely that of spatial reflections (usually in the sense of reflections of the spatial components of the position vector at the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system).

Then one describes the particles by relativistic quantum fields by building up a representation of the own orthochronous Poincare group extended by space reflections. For the hadrons, which can be described in the low energy regime by an effective (chiral) theory of strongly interacting hadrons (baryons and mesons). The strong interaction is P- (and even CP-) invariant (which is a mystery in itself), so parity is a well-defined quantum number of all hadrons as long as only the strong interaction is considered. There is even an approximate spontaneous broken symmetry between even and odd parity states, with the pions being the pseudo-Goldstone bosons of this broken symmetry. Since at the fundamental level of QCD the spontaneous breaking is due to the vacuum expectation value of the scalar order parameter describing the up and down quarks and their antiparticles, the quark condensate. The Goldstone modes are necessarily pseudoscalar modes, i.e., SU ( 2 ) L × SU ( 2 ) L is spontaneously broken to isovector symmetry SU ( 2 ) V . Therefore, the pseudo-Goldstone modes forming an isotriplet of mesons must be described by pseudoscalar fields, and all three pions must have the same parity (-). Now, naively, there is also an Abelian axial symmetry, U ( 1 ) A , if one considers the "classical" Lagrangian, but this symmetry is broken by an anomaly, especially also if one considers the electromagnetic interaction (which, by the way, also breaks the isospin symmetry). For this reason, the decay of the neutral pion into two photons is much larger than expected. The decay into 3 photons is strongly suppressed, if it occurs at all. In the Standard Model, it does not decay into 3 photons because this would violate the C-symmetry (charge conjugation) of the electromagnetic interaction.

If we EMPIRICALLY apply continuous geometric symmetries to conjugate particle charges, we find that conservation of momentum is a consequence of translational symmetry. In the parity and charge conjugation processualization of quantum mechanics, this means that the momentum operator to wavicle is a translational generator. I assume that this means the following: there is a vector field

E (r ) in a Euclidean vector space,

r is the position vector (both are independent of a coordinate system-> invariant tensors) ON ENERGY FRONT with no reference to matter itself and we have chosen a Cartesian coordinate system in which the {x,y,z} coordinates are measured increasing in a certain direction, resulting in a local (covariant) basis at each point in space.

That is, it is massless relatively in the sense of when seen in the context with respect to comparison of motion with respect to another. But the real propagating energy, when for a moment is seen without the use of relativity theory, has a mass at any given time. How to express this using Relativity? This is a great problem!

Not a very great problem in case we tend to shift to Mach-relativity conceptualization ..........

Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.

It is certain that measurement problem shall never be solved by the idea of "Multiverses" ............

The measurement problem does not lead me into the multiverses theory. My proposal has been:

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

Challenging the Universality of the Speed of Light as a Constant

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

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

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

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

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

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

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

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

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

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

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

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

For further discussions on concepts related to Gravitation, Extension-Change Categories, General Theory of Relativity, Unobservables, etc., you may consult also:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth-Castillo-6

That trajectories of masses should follow lines of curvature is certainly false, I believe its only true for light waves.

This is strange considering QM, for light mases.

But what if matter in its group trajectories is itself treated as spacetime curvature, just like we have gravitation and electromagnetism as spacetime curvature?

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

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

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

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

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Light propagates in the least time

Not so masses (the Fermat principle)

But light propagates in finite time. Taking c as the criterion of observation and then comparing another velocity v with c will end up in miracles like zero rest mass and zero mass in c. But the Lorentz factor can use a C or a c1 instead of c and see the annihilation of the miracles! Automatically, c and v will become comparable by only a finite difference.

Dont know exactly what you arr saying

If you compound two lorenz transformation

You get a lorenztransformation and then

You change the parameters to make

It look like a single one with a

different c?

However c has been measured...

I did not mean this about Lorentz transformations. I spoke of how the Lorentz factor is being used in order to show that c is the highest possible velocity in relation to other velocities.

I agree that c has been measured. But it is not zero or infinite. It is a finite velocity. Hence, no miracle of zero rest mass is necessary.

Both matter and light energy and other energies propagate in finite time. Mass is a measure. It does not propagate like existent matter and energy propagate. I know this will be the basis for the next criticism against my knowledge of physics. But I hold that mass does not exist like a thing exists.

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

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

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

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

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

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

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

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

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

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

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...