In the static case there are no quanta. The electric, magnetic, or gravitational force is given by the dependency of the field energy on the distance between the objects, which span the field.

If an object is accelerated, a dynamic field restores the static field, sourced by the object, with the new velocity. This means that the overlay of the static field, moving with the old velocity, and the dynamic field, leaves after the dynamic field has passed, another static field, moving with the new velocity.

Applying a particle model to describe this radiative process is a more or less useful option.

Please consider that the statements above apply to all kinds of fields.

You said: "In the static case there are no quanta." But this is not a matter of concern at all, because the static case appears only in theory and its specific calculations. Physically and physical-ontologically, we can never have a real static case!

And you say: "The electric, magnetic, or gravitational force is given by the dependency of the field energy on the distance between the objects, which span the field." "Given by" means just the theoretical state of givenness, and not the reality out-there. In fact, the electromagnetic and gravitational forces exist as existent propagations from (at least from) matter configurations. Now, my question here is exactly whether EM propagations can be existent as extensions of matter, and if yes, whether they too can generate from themselves gravitons.

Now, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU MEAN BY STATIC IN THE CONCEPT OF A STATIC CASE. You may mean one thing, another physicist or the majority of them may mean something else or something slightly different.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Now, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU MEAN BY STATIC IN THE CONCEPT OF A STATIC CASE."

Static simply means "not dependent on time". Formulae which describe static situations do not contain time dependent parameter.

In that case, things are very clear: There is no physical process without involving time. Even the cosmological singularity, defined mathematically merely in terms of no-space and no-time, is a non-entity.

Hence, your static case is not genuinely physical, but only mathematically a problem.

I have revised substantially the lead text a few minutes ago, adding more details that seem reasonable. Please note that it goes without saying that these are some rational reflections, and not experiments by me!

Raphael Neelamkavil "There is no physical process without involving time."

Yes, but there are situations. A typical situation is that a field exerts a force, but the force does not lead to a movement because there also is a counter force.

This is what happens with gravitation. Gravitation presses us down to the ground, but the ground presses back after it got slightly deformed.

This situation is static and does not involve any movement.

The equations, which describe this situation, include mass, distance, and the gravitational constant, but no time.

You: "... but there are situations. A typical situation is that a field exerts a force, but the force does not lead to a movement because there also is a counter force."

Such situations are situations of calculation. Hence, purely mathematical. But in actuality, the forces are real propagations from both (or all the involved) bodies.

The static situation, therefore, is a situation of calculation. The MUTUAL CANCELLATION HAPPENS IN THE CALCULATIONS, AND NOT IN REALITY. This sense of reality, in the final analysis, is based on Extension and Change, which are the final physical-ontological characteristics of all existents. So, the physics here should be tempered with these two characteristics.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Such situations are situations of calculation. Hence, purely mathematical. But in actuality, the forces are real propagations from both (or all the involved) bodies."

No, nothing propagates. The fields statically belong to the bodies. The forces between bodies are not the result of something, which propagates from one body to another body.

The force is caused by the energy contained in the field overlay. This energy depends on the separation of the bodies which contribute to the overlay. According to "energy equals force times path-way" the force is given by the derivative of the energy content in the field overlay in respect to the separation of the bodies. This is an infinitesimal relation, which is valid without any propagation.

Your assumption above, expressed in italics, is a widespread misconception which leads to graviton theories.

YOUR PHYSICS IS INTERESTING! "No, nothing propagates. The fields statically belong to the bodies. The forces between bodies are not the result of something, which propagates from one body to another body."

In your opinion, do EM waves propagate? Or, does it just go around or remain bound to the bodies as a field? Propagation is also a kind of motion! Do energy wavicles move? Or, is such motion too merely a kind of field (without propagation / motion)?

You say: "The [GRAVITATIONAL] force is caused by the energy contained in the field overlay. This energy depends on the separation of the bodies which contribute to the overlay." Is it just a force due to the distance? Without any energy propagation!? Now, why should there be such a force due to the distance? Wil you now say that the mathematics says it all and necessitates it all...!!!??? If these celestial bodies move, there are differences between the distances between them. Is that the cause of these so-called fields and the seeming propagation of energy, or is it that these fields and propagations cause the distances?

Why are all other conceptions misconceptions? Do you think that there is miraculous action-at-a-distance? This is a very easy physics! Tell me please further about it.....

Raphael Neelamkavil "In your opinion, do EM waves propagate? Or, does it just go around or remain bound to the bodies as a field? Propagation is also a kind of motion! Do energy wavicles move? Or, is such motion too merely a kind of field (without propagation / motion)?"

Waves are a kind of oscillations. They are of course time variant. Waves are decoupled from their sources. They propagate within a medium or they are, in case of electromagnetic waves, their own medium.

"Is it just a force due to the distance? Without any energy propagation!? Now, why should there be such a force due to the distance? Wil you now say that the mathematics says it all and necessitates it all...!!!???"

Deforming the field overlay costs or provides energy. The rate, how much energy modification is involved in an infinitesimal deformation, just determines the force. The existence of the force does not request an actual deformation of the field overlay. We see that the gravitational force presses us down, but it is not necessary that we sink deeper and deeper into the ground.

"Why are all other conceptions misconceptions? Do you think that there is miraculous action-at-a-distance? This is a very easy physics! Tell me please further about it....."

All other conceptions about the occurrence of forces are misconceptions because they bypass the basic principle of "energy equals force time displacement". Conception which imply miraculous things are misconceptions by default.

Yes indeed, physics based on the energy force relation is quite easy. We know that easy solutions are the best.

"Deforming the field overlay costs or provides energy."....! The deformation, field overlay, providing energy, etc. are causal through something existent being communicated, or merely mathematical and just at-a-distance?

Raphael Neelamkavil "Deforming the field overlay costs or provides energy."....! The deformation, field overlay, providing energy, etc. are causal through something existent being communicated, or merely mathematical and just at-a-distance?"

The energy content of the field overlay depends on the distance between the objects, which cause the field overlay. This has been written before.

But you seem to hold that energy particles / wavicles do not exist as propagations, and instead, the distance plays the magic of transferring energy!

Raphael Neelamkavil "But you seem to hold that energy particles / wavicles do not exist as propagations, and instead, the distance plays the magic of transferring energy!"

You seem to cling on a certain misapprehension. Please separate static situations and dynamic processes. Static situations, the presence of fields, or simply the presence of anything, do not involve any transfer.

The force mechanism is such a static mechanism, given as follows:

The force on objects contributing to a force field is given by the derivative of the energy content of the field overlay caused by the objects, in respect to the distance between the objects.

This is an infinitesimal rule, which does not involve any transport at all.

Dynamic processes however, involve transport, and transfer of energy, or transformation of energy. This includes the interaction of particles and fields. If you try to mix static situations, which lead to forces, and dynamic processes, which involve the transfer of energy, you only will come to confusion.

Can there be any time when any existent physical process is not dynamic?

Raphael Neelamkavil "Can there be any time when any existent physical process is not dynamic?"

As you said by yourself, a process is understood to be dynamic. A situation can be static.

But why do you still try to mix up static and dynamic things? The principle in physics is separating considerations and extracting principles as simple as possible.

We can observe that people with a more esotheric background do the opposite. They try to reconnect things, which physicists had separated with great effort. They suggest relations, and cultivate them with a mixture of science and esotherics. Consequently those relations then flourish to a mysterious existence. Finally such mysteries then are misused as a rich source of alleged new findings.

Is your motivation following that trend?

In any situation, we have only physically existent entities that are dynamic. Dynamic means: existing simultaneously in Extended nature and in Changing nature.

So, physics must accept this fact and deal directly with the finitely Extension-Change (dynamic) nature of the entities involved in what you call "situations" too.

The curse of physics and for that matter of all sciences and even of philosophy is this sort of differentiations where in actuality there are no differences -- except in our manner of consideration of the physical processes.

Now, by your introduction of esoteric stuff (not th, but t) as the contradiction to what physics is, you are again bringing in another simplistic manner of consideration of the fully Extension-Change-wise existent nature of physical processes.

I TELL YOU, WITH YOUR SORT OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN DYNAMIC AND SITUATIONAL ENTITIES, YOU ARE BRINGING IN SOMETHING ESOTERIC AND MYSTERIOUS.

Raphael Neelamkavil "I TELL YOU, WITH YOUR SORT OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN DYNAMIC AND SITUATIONAL ENTITIES, YOU ARE BRINGING IN SOMETHING ESOTERIC AND MYSTERIOUS."

No, differentiation clarifies things. Mixing means confusing. Denying static concepts does not help you.

What is mysterious in formulae, which describe forces and which do not contain time dependencies?

Sorry, but I cannot believe, what you are telling here. It seems to be your personal misleaded opinion. You came to this opinion because your knowledge about physics is not well founded or has gaps.

In physics there may be time-independent equations. But this does not mean that we should not see the time-dependence of the physical processes, of which the time-independent equations are a mere provisional manner of dealing, which thereafter must somehow be connected to the dynamic nature of physical processes. This is because we are not able to measure the minute measures of time being used therein, and hence we consider the time aspect as negligible. Connecting everything with the dynamic nature of physical processes is what genuine theory achieves!

But if we consider the static (a-temporal, non-temporal) equations as finally an achievement against the temporal aspect of physical processes, it is in my opinion a manner of bringing in mysterious and esoteric stuff into physics. As is clear by now, you believe in a physics that bases only on space and not on time!

Hence, differentiation between concepts, stages, phenomena, etc. is not what I argued against. But differentiation between the dynamic and the static to such an extent that the static loses the processual aspect of physical entities.

This is also what I have been discussing in many of my discussion sessions. One A few examples are:

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

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency

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

Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse

Raphael Neelamkavil "But if we consider the static (a-temporal, non-temporal) equations as finally an achievement against the temporal aspect of physical processes, it is in my opinion a manner of bringing in mysterious and esoteric stuff into physics. As is clear by now, you believe in a physics that bases only on space and not on time!"

Who says that only the static aspects are considered? Of course we must consider static and dynamic aspects.

In many cases static situations are the backbone of dynamic processes. Have a look at spectroscopy. The static states of electron shells determine the dynamic processes of state transistions. The eigenvalues of the Hamilton operator in the Schrödinger equation determine the static states of electron shells of atoms and molecules.

Dynamic processes can be cyclic. In this case we can apply transformations, which then eliminate the time dependency. Planetary systems as an example may allow such a way to proceed. As a result, it then is possible to calculate appropriate trajectories for space vehicles.

Another extremely important example includes all dynamic processes, which lead to an equilibrium. In the equilibrium the time dependency vanishes because trends towards equilibrium and trends away from the equilibrium have the same probability. Thermodynamics considers such processes.

But there are not at all mysteries or esoteric things involved in all those examples, where time dependencies are not important.

Thinking in space and time is much too restrictive. Statistic aspects are relevant. Fluctuations are extremely time dependent. But considered with the statistical big number rules, they decay to macroscopic observables like density and temperature which often have a very limited time dependency.

I know your deterministic way of thinking from discussions with other people. You are not alone in this domain. But determinism often is irrelevant.

"Dynamic processes can be cyclic. In this case we can apply transformations, which then eliminate the time dependency. Planetary systems as an example may allow such a way to proceed."

Absolutely cyclic, or seemingly cyclic? Of course, in your perfectly spherical geometry everything will be perfect! After beginning with using transformations, you eliminate time dependency? Is there any realistic physical process without involving time? What a fantastic elimination of time dependency!

Raphael Neelamkavil "Absolutely cyclic, or seemingly cyclic? Of course, in your perfectly spherical geometry everything will be perfect! After beginning with using transformations, you eliminate time dependency? Is there any realistic physical process without involving time? What a fantastic elimination of time dependency!"

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand physics. In physics nothing is assumed to be absolutely exact. Everything is only assumed to be sufficiently precise to allow certain conclusions, which are important for applications.

Accuracy, certainty, and significance are fundamental concepts in physics. What you are propagating, is error free physics for super-beings. But as a realistic science, physics must allow constructing technical devices with a managable risk of malfunction.

No solid state object is absolutely solid. Within some billion years solid state objects will evaporate and dissolve like a pudding. But this does not at all matter because within the lifetime of the device in which the solid state object is used, it remains sufficiently stable.

Therefor you should not take any physical statement as absolute. It is only valid within a plausible context.

Your s3 geometry is an error-free perfect universe with perfect spherical nature. First explain this sort of non-real physics!

Raphael Neelamkavil "Your s3 geometry is an error-free perfect universe with perfect spherical nature. First explain this sort of non-real physics!"

Sorry, but I am not your teacher. You are capable to inform yourself about all details of a 3-Sphere or an S³ from mathematic textbooks, up to the details which are important for you. This is pure mathematics. The mathematical domain is differential geometry. Bernhard Riemann is the name of the mathematician who established this mathematical discipline.

Physical properties then can be derived from the shape of geodesics and from symmetries in that space structure.

But Riemann's geometry was not perfectly spherical.

I HAVE REVISED SUBSTANTIALLY THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS OF THE LEAD-TEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION:

1. MODES OF EXISTENCE OF ENERGY-CARRIER EXISTENTS

Without the presence of existent gravitational propagation wavicles / particles, nothing physical can hold together. Additionally, there are electro-magnetic and other non-gravitational propagation wavicles / particles. Both are carriers of energy. Thus, there can be two kinds of force-carrier existents (energy wavicles / particles) which are forms of physical matter processes and hence irreducibly are matter:

(1) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes and pull other objects a step backwards, thus attracting the object gradually into the graviton-issuing object, and

(2) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes, do not pull other objects to the issuing object, and thus give a portion of themselves off to other objects.

Do these gravitational and non-gravitational (electromagnetic and other) wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist and how they may 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.

In short, any matter particle and any force-carrier wavicle can exist only Extension-Change-wise. Whether they really exist is clear enough: if they do not exist, then the matter particles that issue force-carrier existents (wavicles) too need not exist, since force-carrier wavicles are just another (relativistically, and not absolutistically, source-independent) form of existence of mater particles.

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?

Raphael Neelamkavil "But Riemann's geometry was not perfectly spherical."

Strange statement. Riemann's geometry is the science. Bernhard Riemann is the father of differential geometry. Manifolds are his babies.

U need not give me all these elementary information. I said, Riemann's geometry is not spherical.

Raphael Neelamkavil "I said, Riemann's geometry is not spherical."

Riemann's geometry describes all kinds of structures, spherical geometries included.

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

This assumption is wrong. The only mechanism, which leads to forces, is the spatial dependency of energy. The natural law simply is:

Energy equals "force times path-way". In differential form this law reads:

Force is the derivative of energy in respect to a path. Force and path are both vectors. Therefor "times" in the energy law is a scalar product. And the "derivative" contains partial derivatives in all directions.

The explicit law is as follows:

The force on an object which contributes to a force field is given by the derivative of the energy contained in the field overlay in respect to the distance between the object and the source of the force field.

The law in bold characters holds for all kinds of forces and all kinds of force fields.

Consequently nothing issues gravitons. The depency of the energy on a modification of the geometry, is all what we need.

But what we do not need at all, is a story about a spooky action at a distance based upon particles which do not exist. Even only assuming such a nonsense is an unreasonable demand.

In your reply, after saying that what I said in the statement is wrong, you do not tell me whether, in your opinion, there are no issuing of gravitons as propagations from existent matter! You just beat around the bush as usual.

Please, first clarify this. And thereafter come other things! Otherwise, we will go on talking, without any end.

Raphael Neelamkavil "In your reply, after saying that what I said in the statement is wrong, you do not tell me whether, in your opinion, there are no issuing of gravitons as propagations from existent matter!"

Your allegation, I did not tell why there are no gravitons, is wrong.

I presented the cause of the gravitational force, which has nothing to do with gravitons.

The gravitational force has the same cause as all forces have. It simply is the dependency of field energy on the distance of the objects, which cause the field. As soon as the only possible cause of forces has been identified, all other causes are excluded. Ergo we can exclude gravitons from exerting the gravitational force. With that argument, we have excluded the only possible reason for the existence of gravitons.

Is the field energy due to the distance of objects an energy staying within the objects only, and merely expressing themselves by a mathematical "field-dependency" between the objects, OR do these energies propagate as energy wavicles from the objects? OR, even worse, does a kind of miraculous attraction and/or repulsion work due to the merely mathematical fields? I should adore such a math as my God.....

Waves are the physical states of material objects. Therefore, for the waves to be real, they have to be formed by material entities.

Outside the most basic 3D matter-particles, the entire space is filled with an all-encompassing universal medium, structured by quanta of matter in latticework formations. See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0042v2.pdf .

Alternating angular structural distortions in the universal medium is an electromagnetic field. Transfer of electromagnetic field is radiation of work-done (energy) from one location to another. The alternating directional nature of these fields provides it with the wave-nature of electromagnetic waves. Therefore, electromagnetic waves are real and physical.

Corpuscles of radiation (photons) are the most basic 3D matter-particles. They are created from free quanta of matter, available within gaps in structures of universal medium. Universal medium gathers free quanta of matter, compresses and shapes them into disc-shaped 3D matter-cores of photons, which spin at a spin speed proportional to their 3D matter-content and move at the highest possible linear speed with respect to the universal medium. Movements of 3D matter-cores of photons are accomplished by structural distortions formed in the surrounding universal medium, which have many similarities with EM waves in each plane. 3D matter-core and structural distortions in the surrounding universal medium, together, form a photon. 3D matter-core provides its particle nature and structural distortions in the surrounding universal medium provide its wave nature in each plane. This type of radiation transfers 3D matter as well as work-done (energy) from one location to another. It is real and physical.

Due to the structural nature of the universal medium, it is inherently under compression. Therefore, any 3D matter body surrounded by the universal medium is always under compressive effort. This compression, experienced by a 3D matter body is gravitation. The magnitude of gravitation corresponds to the extent of the universal medium that exerts the pressure. The extent of the universal medium between two 3D matter-particles is always less than the extents of the universal medium on their outer sides. Hence higher gravitational actions on the outer sides tend to move the 3D matter-particles toward each other. This tendency is understood as gravitational attraction or gravity. Gravitational attraction (gravity) is the resultant (relatively a minor by-product) of separate gravitational actions on two 3D matter-particles by the universal medium. Gravitation is not transmitted from one body to another. It is the physical action by the universal medium on each of the 3D matter bodies. As long as the 3D matter-contents of participating bodies and the distance between them do not vary, the gravitational attraction between them remains constant. Gravitation or gravitational attractions do not have wave natures.

Nainan

Ninan, you said. "Corpuscles of radiation (photons) are the most basic 3D matter-particles." But what would Wolfgang Konle call them? Just a localized mathematical curvature without any existent stuff there? (I don't know whether you too would call them so.)

And you said: "Gravitation or gravitational attractions do not have wave nature(s)." How has it been confirmed?

And what about this? https://www.jameswebbdiscovery.com/astronomy-news/webb-telescope-gravitational-wave-revolution-in-astrophysics

Are these spacetime curvatures merely a matter of mathematical equations, or are they some existent physical-processual stuff? If they are not existent as real forces out-there between bodies, THEN they may be just some mathematical formulae, OR just a sort of miraculous feeling or miraculous mathematical "force" without existent physical processes beyond and between the (say,) astronomical bodies?

Please do not think that I am attempting to show anyone to be foolish. I AM REALLY INTRIGUED AT SOME COSMOLOGISTS', PHYSICISTS' AND ENGINEERS' MANNER OF AVOIDING THE TALK ABOUT EXISTENT PHYSICAL FORCES AND MAKING MATHEMATICAL WAVES AS SOME MIRACULOUS STUFF HAPPENING BETWEEN ASTRONOMICAL BODIES.

Ninan, do you think that Einstein or any sensible physicist would substitute existent physical processes with mathematical equations? Have they been so foolish as to equate math with physics?

Again, I tell you: I am not jeering at anyone. I am just surprised at the more than 120 years of practice of some physicists by terming physically existent processes as mathematical miracles....

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.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Is the field energy due to the distance of objects an energy staying within the objects only, and merely expressing themselves by a mathematical "field-dependency" between the objects, OR do these energies propagate as energy wavicles from the objects? OR, even worse, does a kind of miraculous attraction and/or repulsion work due to the merely mathematical fields?

Don't try to compromise fundamental physical facts. Force fields simply have an energy density. This energy density is proportional to the field strength squared. The field strength depends on the distance of the field source with an inverse square law.

Both of your "either or" alternatives are eclatant bullshit. The field energy is not an energy staying with the objects only. The field energy density is a physical ingridient of the field. It is the essence of the field. There is no propagation involved. The field energy density is just where the field is.

You are continuously avoiding the essential question. Now you began again by giving statements like: "Force fields simply have an energy density. This energy density is proportional to the field strength squared. The field strength depends on the distance of the field source with an inverse square law."

Did anyone ask you to give these elementary information from school textbooks? (Now you may say that I am still at the school level of knowledge in physics! Thanks.)

And you use the following bullshit manner of avoiding the question of the existence or not of energy wavicles as propagations / propagation fields from existent objects:

"The field energy is not an energy staying with the objects only. The field energy density is a physical ingridient of the field. It is the essence of the field. There is no propagation involved. The field energy density is just where the field is."

If there is no propagation of energy wavicles as existent wavicles, then there exists no energy field too! WHAT IS BEING REPRESENTED BY MATH AS FIELD IS TO EXIST, ALTHOUGH NOT EXACTLY AS WE CHARACTERIZE IT, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING EXISTENT OUT-THERE... If not, why to speak of non-existent things?

Have courage to face the question: Do energy wavicles exist or not, just like a physicist believes that material bodies exist? All these words like 'bullshit' do not offend me. U can say anything. But let us face the question.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Have courage to face the question: Do energy wavicles exist or not, just like a physicist believes that material bodies exist? All these words like 'bullshit' do not offend me. U can say anything. But let us face the question."

What is an energy wavicle? Is it a photon?

If it is a photon, why do you invent such a ridiculous new term for something basic?

Again: Let us assume that they are the same, without theoretical disputes as to how a photon differs from an energy wavicle. Do photons exist as propagations from their propagation source (material bodies), or are they non-existent?

What exactly is it that deters you from giving a direct reply to the question, without giving further school textbook level material for me to instruct myself?

I shall help u: By existence I mean whatever it means in the existence of anything as out-there, extra-mental, not purely conceptual, physical existents. Do you have problems with the concept of existence too?

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

Raphael Neelamkavil "Again: Let us assume that they are the same, without theoretical disputes as to how a photon differs from an energy wavicle. Do photons exist as propagations from their propagation source (material bodies), or are they non-existent?"

Of course photons exist and they contain energy. But what are "propagations"? Photons propagate with the speed of light. But what is a "propagation source". Every photon has a source, which emitted the photon. The source has provided the energy, which is contained in the photon. But a "propagation source" is a strange term, which I never had heared before.

If you ask questions full of those strange terms, you cannot expect a clear answer, because nobody knows the meaning of your questions.

It seems that you have established a science world, full of private wonders paired with a rich half knowledge. Now you want to find out what wonders can be confirmed by official science. But you do not believe in official science, instead you are convinced, that rather your private wonders reflect the reality.

But I am sorry that I cannot follow you up to an unlimited depth into your peculior private world. My impression is that you are not really interested in relations to the real world. You are such deeply involved in your own special view that nothing else has any meaning for you.

"But a "propagation source" is a strange term, which I never had hear(e)d before."

If I say 'source of propagation', will u have heard it? In English we can write the same also as 'propagation source', auf Deutsch "Ausbreitungsquelle".....

If German can do it so, English too can. This needs no explanation for those who want to understand.

U: "It seems that you have established a science world, full of private wonders paired with a rich half knowledge." I called miracles the miraculous sort of stuff you speak of. In my world, everything is causal, hence not miraculous.

If you meant "half-rich", good. Friend, I am an uneducated and foolish man.

Raphael Neelamkavil "If I say 'source of propagation', will u have heard it? In English we can write the same also as 'propagation source', auf Deutsch "Ausbreitungsquelle"....."

The term "propagation source" or "source of propagation" suggests something wrong. It suggests that the source, which emits something, has an influence on the propagation of the emission. But this is wrong. There is no such influence. The style of the emission is fire and forget.

Wolfgang Konle,

Should we consider the scenario in which a condensed field of electromagnetic energy, which we can categorize as matter, releases photons, might we not then hypothesize that the propagation velocity of these photons would be modulated by the gravitational field intrinsically generated by the matter, acting as the source of propagation? If this proposition holds merit, it implies that the velocity of photon emission is dependent, at least in part, on the gravitational influences exerted by the originating source, the source of propagation.

Charles Wohl, thanks for the fine manner of putting it all together into a theoretical gist.

Charles Wohl "...the propagation velocity of these photons would be modulated by the gravitational field intrinsically generated by the matter, acting as the source of propagation?"

Sorry, but this alleged causality does not exist. Every single photon has been created by an elementary particle, an atom. The gravitational impact is far too weak to modify the speed of the photon.

After the emission, the source has no influence at all on what has been emitted.

U: "Sorry, but this alleged causality does not exist. Every single photon has been created by an elementary particle, an atom. The gravitational impact is far too weak to modify the speed of the photon.

After the emission, the source has no influence at all on what has been emitted."

And this "creation" by an elementary particle, an atom, is causation or a miraculous creation from nothing?

And the gravitational radiation / propagation is causal from the source or again a miraculous creation from nothing?

Causation does not require that the source must have a continuous influence at the emitted energy quanta!

I do not know why u do not think in these evident lines.

Wolfgang Konle,

A material body need not be confined to a single atom. Indeed, Earth, which is composed of an extensive collection of atoms, is far from being a solitary atom. The substantial atomic collection that forms Earth serves as a source that impacts the propagation speed of light - a phenomenon experimentally validated. By dividing Earth's mass by its total number of atoms, we can theoretically deduce the influence that a single atom (acting as a source) would have on the velocity of light. Although such influence would be practically immeasurable, it could still be computed using mathematical methods.

Charles Wohl "The substantial atomic collection that forms Earth serves as a source that impacts the propagation speed of light"

Earth generates a gravitational environment. But it is not earth, which emits a photon. The emission is issued by a tiny component of earth. The propagation of the emitted photon is subject of the environmental conditions during the emission. But there is no causal relationship between the source of the emission and those environmental conditions. Exclusively those environmental conditions have an influence on the propagation of radiation. According to relativity theory, no local impact on the propagation exists at all.

Ergo, we cannot consider the whole earth as a source for the emission of a photon.

Apart from that, emitted photons move away from their source with the speed of light. According to relativity theory, this means that fundamentally they are not reachable by any kind of causal impact from their source.

Wolfgang Konle,

I see what you are saying and agree with your overall thesis, yet I feel that the gravitational effect of the Earth is a result of the combined gravitational pull of all of the atoms in the Earth. While the effect of a single atom is negligible, the contribution of each atom adds up to create a significant gravitational field. This gravitational field affects the speed at which photons leave atoms. The presence of each atom creates a tiny pocket of curvature in space. These tiny pockets of curvature add up to create the larger curvature of space that we see around massive objects like the Earth.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Causation does not require that the source must have a continuous influence at the emitted energy quanta!" I do not know why u do not think in these evident lines."

You are switching the subject. Instead of "propagations" you now want to consider causation.

In the case of photon emission, a state transition of the source is the cause of the photon emission. The energy difference between the two states of the source corresponds to the energy content of the emitted photon.

What is your problem with that obvious explanation? What is the role of "propagations" in that context?

Charles Wohl "While the effect of a single atom is negligible, the contribution of each atom adds up to create a significant gravitational field"

Yes, force field contributions linearly add up to a combined field. Mathematically, vector addition leads to the combined field strength.

Causation and propagation are closely interrelated. Without causation there is no propagation of EM quanta and Gravitational gravitons as wavicles / particles. That is, I have not changed the topic.

As for the connection between photon wavicle emission (and propagation) from atoms due to (caused by) state transitions and gravitational emission from "the earth", Charles Wohl have given u a good reply. I second it.

“Do Electromagnetic Quanta and Gravitational Quanta (Gravitons) Gravitate from Within? Do they Exist, or Are They Mere Mathematical Equations?”

- what are “Electromagnetic Quanta” and “Gravitational Quanta” is explained in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces , which is developed basing on the SS7VT whole informational physical model, so more would be useful to read the whole model,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , where the Forces model is in section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”

Including in the Forces models it is rigorously scientifically shown that both Forces act by two types of “Quanta”:

- directly, when a particle, body, etc., has a Force charge, Gravity Force charge “gravitational mass” [which every particle has], and “electric charge”, the charges radiate the Forces’ mediators, “circular gravitons” and “circular photons”, which aren’t particles, and so don’t have/carry energy, however at hitting into other “irradiated” particle trigger releasing of its energy so, that irradiated particle obtains 3D space “quantum of momentum” – and so “quantum of energy” so, that if is free, it is accelerated along line between these particles, the mediators flows form classical “Forces fields”;

and

- if some mediator is impacted by some external force, it transforms into just particle - “circular gravitons” transform into particles “gravitons”, “circular photons” transform into particles “photons”, which have/carry “quanta of energy/momentum” as well.

This universal in Matter scheme acts in Nuclear Force case also, see the SS&VT 2023 model of this Force in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force; though in this case the mediators “circular mesons”, if are impacted, transform into having rest mass π-mesons.

Etc., more see the linked paper, though note, the whole model is presented in two main papers, besides the above see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko, thanks. A very good and detailed manner of responding. Please continue to read the reactions to the discussion (and other discussions) and please give your reflections.

Raphael

Sergey Shevchenko, I have started a new discussion, which awaits your reflections. Please do not feel withdrawn because there is some philosophical shade to the following discussion. I think you will like it:

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

Sergey Shevchenko "- directly, when a particle, body, etc., has a Force charge, Gravity Force charge “gravitational mass” [which every particle has], and “electric charge”, the charges radiate the Forces’ mediators, “circular gravitons” and “circular photons”, which aren’t particles, and so don’t have/carry energy, however at hitting into other “irradiated” particle trigger releasing of its energy so, that irradiated particle obtains 3D space “quantum of momentum” – and so “quantum of energy” so, that if is free, it is accelerated along line between these particles, the mediators flows form classical “Forces fields”;"

The so called "forces' mediators" either have energy or not. But for having any impact, they need energy. Why thinking so complex that the mediators must be clouds of particles? It is absolutely sufficient if the mediators have an energy density. The overlay of mediators then has an energy density which depends on the distance between the sources of the mediators. This is sufficient for creating the force.

It then is only a tiny step to identify the mediator of the force with the force field itself. The linear vectorial overlay rules of fields and the quadratic dependency of the energy density on the field strength then provide the perfect force law. Clouds of mediator particles never would lead to such a perfect force law as we observe it.

""""It is absolutely sufficient if the mediators have an energy density.""""....

The energy density belong to its parts. This is not a complex thinking. Avoiding it by calling it complex is too simple a trick.

Raphael Neelamkavil """"It is absolutely sufficient if the mediators have an energy density.""""....

The energy density belong to its parts. This is not a complex thinking. Avoiding it by calling it complex is too simple a trick."

No, this statement is blatant nonsense. An energy density cannot belong to any given part. A certain amount of energy can belong to such a part. But partitioning those mediators is arbitrary. What granularity is appropriate?

What do you want to gain with such an arbitrary granularity?

What is the granularity of the gravitational attraction of two hydrogen atoms? Does the attraction between earth and sun have the same granularity as the attraction between two hydrogen atoms? Then this granularity is as smooth as a continuous field.

Exactly, distributed!

Wolfgang Konle, I do not want to gain anything.

How do u connect granularity to continuity?

I ask questions not to offend you. I am just being honest in my questions. Please do not give again irritated words. Let us discuss anything peacefully....

The scientific answer to the thread question see in SS post on page 6.

Wolfgang Konle,

“…The so called "forces' mediators" either have energy or not. But for having any impact, they need energy. Why thinking so complex that the mediators must be clouds of particles? It is absolutely sufficient if the mediators have an energy density. The overlay of mediators then has an energy density which depends on the distance between the sources of the mediators. This is sufficient for creating the force.

It then is only a tiny step to identify the mediator of the force with the force field itself.…”

- that in macroscale – i.e. in classical electrodynamics and Newton Gravity theory – indeed the real fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces’ mediators as the “fields” are observed, and systems of coupled by the Forces having gravitational and/or electric charges bodies are describing/analyzing by using the physical “field” is used, is correct.

However that in classical theories the fields have some energies [including “energy densities”], is fundamentally, at least at statics, fundamentally wrong, and is essentially wrong at bodies motion. That evidently violates the energy conservation law, and quite clearly reveals itself if in a system a field’s strength is large; say, that is evident when in the GR on “event horizon” surfaces energy of falling body is infinite – though that is in Newton Gravity as well; what is evident absurdity.

Really – as that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces, the links see SS post on page 6,

- the energy that has a system of infinitely distant N bodies that are at rest in absolute 3DXYZ space of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct), and have rest masses m0i, i=1.2….N, is equal to E0=Σim0ic2, potential energies of bodies are equal to zero, and, despite that bodies are charged, and so have “fields” the system has no any other energy additionally to E0.

If at some negligible impacts, and if a Force is attractive one, the bodies start to move toward each other, composing mostly more and more compact system, and the bodies don’t interact with something external, i.e. the system always remains be closed system,

- the energy of the system fundamentally remains be always equal to E0, independently on what distances the bodies are.

And independently on - what kinetic energies moving bodies have, from what it follows that the bodies were accelerated – and have corresponding kinetic energies – spending only some internal energy, and by no means obtaining the mystic energy from mythic “fields” , as that classic is postulated in classic ED, Newton mechanics, and in the GR in mainstream physics;

- correspondingly, say, if in a system the bodies compose an one body, and so kinetic energy is dissipated, mostly at photons radiation into outer space, the mass of the system, M, is lesser than Σim0i on the “mass defect”, ΔM, and the energy in the system is lesser than E0 on ΔMc2.

On the QM scale the Forces interactions are interactions between particles, and these interactions are fundamentally quantized, here are two main types of interaction, more again see the SS post on page 6, and again see the models, where it is rigorously scientifically explained that the all 3 above Forces’ mediators, though cause quantum changes of particles’ energies, aren’t particles, and so don’t have/don’t carry any energy, at least at statics; the Forces’ fields are extremely intensive flaws of the mediators, however also fundamentally haven’t any energy.

Etc., more see the SS post on page 6 and the papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko Beginning with "- that in macroscale – i.e. in classical electrodynamics and Newton Gravity theory –..."

You have presented the classical explanation of the theory of potential energy. But nevertheless, since E=mc² has been found, this theory is wrong, because it leads to an unresolvable contradiction.

If particles have entered an area of low potential they must have lost potential energy and accordingly their rest mass must be reduced. But we must exclude that possibility because experiments exclude it. But then, energy conservation and the equality of inertial and gravitational mass is violated.

Let us assume the considered system contains point masses which all collide at the same instant. Immediately before the collision all potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. But the colliding particles do not show an according reduction of their rest mass. In fact only the relativistic mass of the particles has been increased without any trace of a potential energy.

It is an unresolvable contradiction to "inertial mass equals gravitational mass" that only kinetic energy has a mass equivalent.

If you consider the system from the outside, you observe an increased relativistic mass. What you should observe is no modification at all.

The contradiction vanishes if we consider field energy. The gain of relativistic mass then is compensated by the loss of field energy.

Wolfgang Konle,

- in the SS posts above - and in detail in the linked in the posts papers – it is quite clearly scientifically explained in more than a first approximation of what exists and happens at least in some simple gravitationally coupled systems;

– including that at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear fundamental Nature forces’ fields don’t contain energy.

So more see the SS posts above and the links, here only a brief comment, to:

“…Let us assume the considered system contains point masses….The contradiction vanishes if we consider field energy. The gain of relativistic mass then is compensated by the loss of field energy. ….”

- the “energy density of gravitational filed” of a point mass near mass → to infinity, including if the mass is at rest in 3D space. Believe me, nothing in Matter has infinite energy, including a point mass, m, has, if is at rest, has only energy E0=m0c2; and zero energy in its Gravity field.

Again, the of mainstream Gravity [and other Forces] theories really are wrong because of really wrong postulating that the Forces’ fields have energy [in GR the “curved spacetime” has energy], and that evidently reveals itself in every case if a Force is strong, not only if a source of the field is “point-like”; say, fantastic physical objects/events/processes “exist”, according to the GR, on the “event horizons” of “holes in spacetime” [“ GR black holes], the radius of Milky way SMBH “event horizon” isn’t a point, it is ~ 25 million kilometers.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Yes a point mass does not exist physically. It is an approximation for a negilible radius, compared to field extensions.

Can you prove that force fields do not contain an energy density?

Do you really think the following formulae are wrong?

The energy density of force fields is: Electrical: ϵ0E², Magnetic: µ0H²,

Gravitational: -g²/(8πG) ? Without a field energy density proportional to the square of the field strenght, force fields cannot exert a force.

If you charge and discharge a capacitor, the electric field in and around the capacitor appears and disappears. The electric energy used to charge the capacitor matches to the integral over ϵ0E².

If you charge and discharge a an electric coil, the magnetic field in and around the coil appears and disappears. The electric energy used to create the magnetic field in the coil matches to the integral over µ0H².

Why do magnetohydrodynamic equations relate magnetic pressure µ0H² and gaskinetic plasma pressure in plasma confinement equations?

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

Wolfgang Konle,

- in a thread in most cases only one SS post in a day is written, while the posts contain mostly points, which mostly contradict with mainstream physics and so are really non-trivial ones

- since relate to really fundamental phenomena/objects/events/processes in Matter, which really are fundamentally transcendent in the mainstream, and so the mainstream theories are based really only on postulated in the theories transcendent/mystic assumptions that are illusory interpretations by the authors of experimental data;

- despite that it is completely evident that the data can be rationally really scientifically interpreted only provided that the fundamental phenomena, etc., are rigorously scientifically defined.

That is can be, and done only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, where all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which are the fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, are really scientifically defined.

Correspondingly in the SS&VT Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force;

- which is based on the conception, and so the model is based also principally on non-illusory interpretations of experimental data, more 30 really fundamental physical problems, which are “solved” in mainstream physics principally only by some really mystic – and really wrong – ways, are really scientifically either solved or essentially clarified.

Again, all in the SS posts and papers isn’t trivial, and so to understand what is written in the posts it is necessary to spend some time – so, again, the threads contain practically always only one SS post; however you write some comments to the SS posts practically immediately – so without correspondingly necessary thinking, and stubbornly repeat your really physically wrong points, which are responded in the SS post already rather numerously; say, in last SS post above a next time it is written that

- the fundamental Nature forces fields fundamentally don’t contain, at least at statics, energy, and that in mainstream physics the fields have “energy density” and so “contain energy” is a fundamental mainstream flaw, which evidently reveals itself if, say, a Force action is large enough: from this mainstream postulate the really fundamental energy conservation law is evidently violated. What is fundamental nonsense. So, say, that yours

“…Yes a point mass does not exist physically. It is an approximation for a negilible radius, compared to field extensions….”

- is rather strange passage, in the last SS post on page 7 it is clearly pointed that in the GR the “energy of curved spacetime” is infinite on Milky way SMBH “event horizon” surface, which isn’t a point, the radius of this “point” is ~ 25 million kilometers.

“…..Can you prove that force fields do not contain an energy density?...”

- again, the rigorous proof follows by rigorous Proof by contradiction from the absurdities above that follow from the mainstream postulates that Forces’ fields contain energy – see above,

“….Without a field energy density proportional to the square of the field strenght, force fields cannot exert a force….”

- again, as that rigorously shown in the SS&VT initial models of fundamental Nature Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear forces, the Forces fields fundamentally don’t “exert a force”, and so don’t do any physical work since haven’t for that own energies; all physical works in Forces’ coupled systems, at least at statics, is made at spending own energies of elements of the systems.

“….If you charge and discharge a capacitor, the electric field in and around the capacitor appears and disappears.…..”

- that is responded in the SS post, page 218, 7 days ago now, in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature/218

- though this thread is flooded by a few posters who have too strange physical ideas, but are remarkably vivid, the physical ignorance makes writing of full stop trash an easy job.

Again – to write a really scientific comment to any SS post is necessary to be able to think scientifically rationally – and to think.

Cheers

It is time for a paradigm change in non-spacetime physics. The time of considering potential energy is over. Now, force field energy gets into the focus.

The immediate consequence is a revision of radiation concepts. According to the old paradigm, radiation emitted by an accelerated mass or charge, can be described with a plane wave approach.

According to the field energy paradigm, this is wrong. The plane wave approach excludes the aperiodic aspects of wave theory. The new view is as follows:

Every force-field is co-moving with ist source. If the source is accelerated a radiative force field part appears. After the acceleration has ended. The radiative part vanishes with the speed of light. But this radiative part leaves a modified force field. The new force field co-moves with the new velocity of the field source. But the force field modification from old- to new velocity occurs with the speed of light.

The radiative part, described here, occurs because force fields have an energy density. But the radiation effect is not restricted to the modification of the static field part. This task only is the aperiodic part. A periodic part also occurs as a consequence of the wave equation. But with the new paradigm, the match between periodic and aperiodic part is the new key to solve the wave equation. An arbitrary plane wave approach is no longer appropriate.

It is obvious that radiation contains the same kind of field energy density as static fields. It is also well known that wave phenomena include periodic and aperiodic parts. The restriction on the periodic view, as given with the plane wave approach, is a distressing fallacy of theoretical physics.

However, it is even worse that the static force field energy density has been denied. Wave theory does not justify such a significant difference between periodically and aperiodically modified force field components. Therefor, assigning a zero energy density to the aperiodic or the static part of force fields is not comprehensible.

It is an ignominy that for such a long time theoretical physics has ignored the energy density contained in static force fields and even developed radiation concepts based on that ignorance.

You have written well. This time the explanation is more interesting. Only a little clarification from my side:

"The plane wave approach excludes the aperiodic aspects of wave theory." This may be true. But I would like to suggest that what I have suggested is not from the viewpoint of the plane wave theory.

What exactly is the physical effect of the "aperiodic" aspects? After all, these aspects are NOT NON-TEMPORAL in effect. Highlighting this does not reduce the field theory into a plane wave theory.

I believe that the static and other force fields do not happen without time.

Congrats.

I wait for the response from Sergey Shevchenko.

Raphael Neelamkavil "What exactly is the physical effect of the "aperiodic" aspects?"

The physical aspect is an aperiodically moving force field. The shape of the force field is different after the aperiodic process has ended. However, the physical consequence is that all three field appearances, the static co-moving field (co-moving with the field source), the aperiodic field modification, and the periodic field oscillation, must have an energy density. The energy density is proportional to the field strength squared.

This consideration proofs that also the static appearance of fields, which fulfil the wave equation, contain an energy density. Fulfilling the wave equation is the deep reason for the non-zero energy density. The wave equation assumes a pressure, which is identical to an energy density.

This consideration definitively disproofs the widespread assumption that static fields have no energy density.

The conclusion "energy =hf equals zero because of f=0 for static fields" is not applicable. Ignoring aperiodic solutions of the wave equation leads to this wrong conclusion.

What you did not grasp from the content of this paradigm change, is the proof of the non-zero energy density of static force field components.

I am as well curious about a reaction from Sergey, who is an enthusiastic proponent of a zero energy density of static force field components.

But I fear that Sergey only will point to his numerous publications, which allegedly show that static force field components have no energy density, and that in this sense all force fields are completely powerless.

What you call aperiodic is not non-temporal. I have seen some such expressions in others too, but I wanted to be sure what you meant. That is all. In the mathematization of many physical phenomena we may tend to do it without using periods / without using periodic conceptual instruments. That does not mean that the process being discussed has no temporal dimension. This is what I take from your reply.

Raphael Neelamkavil "What you call aperiodic is not non-temporal."

Yes, only static field components, co-moving with the field source are non-temporal.

But, what you should take from my reply is the proof that force fields contain energy density. Without such an energy density force fields would be absolutely poewerless and could not cause forces. They would not be worth their name.

I have always thought that "force fields contain energy density". If they would not contain energy density, they become non-entities!

Wolfgang Konle,

I agree with you that force fields contain energy density.

Yet, while static fields may not be affected by the passage of time, the shape of the space around them can affect how different people perceive them. The curvature of space can make static fields appear different to people in different locations or moving in different ways.

The fact that static force fields, co-moving with their source, contain an energy density, has a consequence. We know that force fields add up verctorially and exactly linearly. We also know that the energy density of force fields is proportional to the field strength squared.

The consequence is the force law. The energy density of the field overlay depends on the distance between the field sources. This dependency leads to a force between the field sources.

According to "energy equals force times path way", the force is given by the directional derivative of the overlay energy in respect to the distance between the sources of the field.

This force law holds for all kinds of force fields, gravitational, electrical, and magnetic.

Other causes, than this energetic cause, for forces exerted by force fields, do not exist.

The answer to the thread question “Do Electromagnetic Quanta and Gravitational Quanta (Gravitons) Gravitate from Within? Do they Exist, or Are They Mere Mathematical Equations?” see in SS post on page 6, 6 days ago now

- both “Electromagnetic Quanta” and “Gravitational Quanta” fundamentally exist, because of all/every interactions in Matter fundamentally happen by some “quanta”, mostly of energy, ΔE and always of momentums ΔP; and all interactions happen at acting of the at least 4 known now fundamental Nature Gravity, Weak, Electric, and Nuclear/Strong forces; though the actions of these Forces are determined also by action of the conservation laws, what is also some “Forces acting”, say, that are spin-spin, spin-orbital, etc., components in potentials of QM systems [atoms, nuclei, etc.];

- and so really at actions of the Forces there exist mainly two types of “Quanta”. More see the SS post pointed above – and some comments in SS posts on pages 7 and 8; here only repeat that:

- at the Forces actions, which happen as exchange by the Forces’ mediators, the intensive flaws of which on macroscale are observed as the “Forces fields” [really that are only Gravity and Electric [in mainstream physics also “Magnetic” field, but this field really is some transformation of Electric field] fields; Weak and Nuclear/Strong Forces act fundamentally only on QM scale],

- the mediators of at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces fundamentally don’t carry some energy, that is prohibited by energy conservation law in closed coupled by a Force systems of particles, bodies, etc.

So that in mainstream physics on macroscale, i.e. classical ED and the GR, the Forces fields have “energy densities” and so contain energy, and in QFTs the Forces’ charges exchange by – though “virtual” – particles that carry some energy, is really nothing else than mystic “Mere Mathematical Equations”, usage of which – with usage also some other mathematical tricks - in some cases looks as is adequate to the reality.

More see relating to Gravity and Electric Forces the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces, in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces [better, since some points more in detail are explained in whole SS&VT informational physical model, in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”];

- relating to Nuclear Force see the 2023 SS&VT initial model in in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Some additional note to:

“…I am as well curious about a reaction from Sergey, who is an enthusiastic proponent of a zero energy density of static force field components.But I fear that Sergey only will point to his numerous publications, which allegedly show that static force field components have no energy density, and that in this sense all force fields are completely powerless.……”

- really here are only two publications – see above; where it is explained quite clearly, completely scientifically, and in detail, that Forces’ fields fundamentally cannot contain some energy, since that violates the energy conservation law, while the mainstream physics and in some “paradigm changes” the introduction of energy in the fields has no any rational grounds – what is quite natural since in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena, including “Matter” – and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “Forces”, “energy”, “field”, etc., are fundamentally transcendent, and so everything in the mainstream eventually based on some transcendent illusory - and so always, including in this case, really wrong, interpretations of experimental data.

Cheers

What is energy?

All 'natural forces' are different manifestations of gravitation.

Please see the TOC of the book ‘MATTER (Re-examined) at https://matterdoc.info/matter/mattoc.pdf

If all natural forces are taken as different manifestations of gravitation, the following doubt comes to mind: Are they different manifestations merely mathematically or also physically?

Sergey Shevchenko "Forces’ fields fundamentally cannot contain some energy, since that violates the energy conservation law,"

Force fields are statically co-moving with the field source. How could that static relationship violate energy conservation?

Electromagnetic radiation has an energy density. Electromagnetic radiation is nothing else as oscillating electric and magnetic fields. How can electromagnetic radiation contain an energy density, but electric and magnetic fields shall not contain an anergy density? This is impossible.

Hence, do you mean to say that force fields and their content which are energy wavicles are all empty of content? I know that there are mathematical renderings of what you say. Are these renderings the same as the physical fields?

Only once we have succeeded in describing configurations leading to charged chiral fermions, we shall ever ,then , be capable of employing them in building models with 4d gravity and gauge interactions.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Hence, do you mean to say that force fields and their content which are energy wavicles are all empty of content? I know that there are mathematical renderings of what you say. Are these renderings the same as the physical fields?"

Is it so difficult to understand, that force fields only contain energy density and nothing else? They are exactly co-moving with their source. This movement always occurs in one inertial reference system, and in this system it is absolutely static. The energy density is proportional to the field strength squared. It is given as:

Electrical: ϵ0E², magnetic: µ0H², gravitational: -g²/(8πG).

There are no renderings, wavicles or any other strange stuff. Static energy density is all what the force fields have.

My questions are. Do you mean the existence only of mathematical energy density or physical energy density in force fields? And when you say "it is absolutely static", do you mean mathematically expressed staticity due to relatively coherent movement, or absolute lack of motion? I ask such naive questions because it is with these that physicists have been playing and throwing a veil onto the faces of the audience and readers!

Raphael Neelamkavil "My questions are..."

There is no mathematical "energy density". Energy density is a deeply physical concept, even identical with the concept of pressure.

Absolutely static means that there is no change in time. Everything which is absolutely static, remains in any aspect for ever as it currently is.

Is this clear enough, without any veil or fog?

Energy fronts are the very edges on which Forces work . The relation between Energy and Force is very difficult to be denied . When objects collide, contact forces transfer energy so as to change the objects' motions. When two objects interact, each one exerts a force on the other, and these forces can transfer energy between them. Fields contain energy that depends on the arrangement of the objects in the field. Still , as a particle physicist , I think when particle physicists talk of four fundamental forces, the better word would be "interaction between the fundamental quantum fields" but I'm just surmising here: The fermion degeneracy pressure arises from the interaction of the particular fermion field in question with itself - I guess that is why it is not part of the four fundamental interactions.

Wolfgang Konle,

“…Sergey Shevchenko [SS quote] "Forces’ fields fundamentally cannot contain some energy, since that violates the energy conservation law,"[end quote]

Force fields are statically co-moving with the field source. How could that static relationship violate energy conservation?...”

- if there is some free “field source” for its field being “ statically co-moving” it is necessary for the source at the motion constantly radiate new and new “field” , which has “energy density”/energy, having for that some mystic practically infinite energy – most of the “sources ” in Matter yet now “radiate fields” when constantly move soon 14 billion of years, but remain be the same as were 14 billion of years.

Though yeah, the “whole energy”, E, as the integral of “field energy density” from the “source radius” , R, to infinity, of Gravity and Electric fields at statics is finite, that in the passage above at a motion remains be actual;

- though, besides, what is quite more essential - this “energy of a source” depends on R – the sources that have equal “charges” but have different R, radiate for some unknown reasons different energies, what looks as rather strange fact; though yet more strange fact is in that at R→0 E→infinity, i.e. the same charge can radiate any energy only depending on what size it has. Etc. from the mainstream physics [and yours, when for a strange reason you write that in this case that contradicts with the mainstream] postulate that sources radiate energy many strange consequences follow, more see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

“….Electromagnetic radiation has an energy density. Electromagnetic radiation is nothing else as oscillating electric and magnetic fields. How can electromagnetic radiation contain an energy density, but electric and magnetic fields shall not contain an anergy density? This is impossible.….”

Again, the at least 3 – Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces’ fields don’t contain energy at statics at all, however if some “source of field” of a Force above, i.e. completely for sure some Force’s charge, is accelerated by some external force so that it moves in 3D space with a speed V,

- the Force’s mediators, which are specific disturbances in in Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the lattice; since they aren’t particles, at statics don’t contain/carry “own” energy and “own” momentum,

- obtain some external real momentums, as some additional precession of their FLEs, so the mediators interact with “irradiated” charges in a not as how that happens in statics, way, what, say, in Electric Force case, looks as appearance of “magnetic field”,

- what in classical ED is described as the “Poynting vector”, and so in this case the spent at the acceleration above external energy by some way is contained in an EM filed.

Besides at an acceleration some impacts of external momentums on some Force’s mediators, these mediators transform into real particles , which – as any other particles – fundamentally have some energies, in Electric Force case that are photons, Gravity Force case – gravitons, Nuclear Force case - π-mesons;

- however, again – all that happens only at/after external impact on a Force’s charge; without external impacts charges fundamentally don’t radiate any energy, just so particles in Matter are stable despite that mostly have charges of all Forces, and so always and constantly radiate corresponding the Forces’ mediators.

More, first of all how the energy conservation law is violated in mainstream physics, including the GR, also – and in this case completely evidently - in coupled by a Force systems of charges, see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts, at least in the post on page 9, 2 days ago now.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "- if there is some free “field source” for its field being “ statically co-moving” it is necessary for the source at the motion constantly radiate new and new “field” , which has “energy density”/energy, having for that some mystic practically infinite energy – most of the “sources ” in Matter yet now “radiate fields” when constantly move soon 14 billion of years, but remain be the same as were 14 billion of years."

Sorry to say this very clearly, but this statement is wrong.

If the force-field is co-moving with its source, absolutely no action from the source is required to keep the status of the field.

The field is not vanishing at its old place and being re-established at the new location. No it only moves unchanged from the old- to the new location. The field source exactly moves along the same pathway without any exchange between source and field. By the way, it is sufficient to consider force-fields around elementary particles. All other fields only are overlays of the elementary fields.

Only if the source is accelerated, it sends out some radiation, which moves with the speed of light. This radiation has an aperiodic and a periodic part.

The aperiodic part re-establishes the field to the co-movement of the source after the acceleration has ended. The periodic part fulfills the wave equation in combination with the aperiodic part.

Ignoring the aperiodic part is one of the most embarrasing fallacies of standard physics.

gravitate from within cannot be conceptually put against gravitation from without . All quantum-physical and cosmological causal/non-causal dilemmas have superluminally causal solutions if existents are processual by extension-change impact-transfer. Einstein defined gravity as the effect of curves in space-time created by the presence of matter. According to the new approach, gravity is an emergent phenomenon. Space-time and the matter within it are treated as a hologram that arises from an underlying network of quantum bits (called “qubits”), much as the three-dimensional environment of a computer game is encoded in classical bits on a silicon chip. Fixing the extent of applicability of mathematics to physics demonstrates Universal Causality for cosmogenetic theories. Whether the cosmos is of finite or infinite content, the Gravitational Coalescence Paradox in cosmogenetic theories yields a philosophical cosmology of infinite-eternal continuous creation: specifically, the Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology.

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

Wolfgang Konle,

- you again, despite that in SS posts it was pointed already that in a thread practically always only one SS post in a day is written, whereas, since the posts aren’t trivial, so for readers to understand what is written in many cases it is necessary to spent a long time enough, again write your comments to the next SS post immediately, and so again write something that is too strangely physically. All in your post really is rather strange, so only one comment to

“…..Sergey Shevchenko "[SS quote]- if there is some free “field source” for its field being “ statically co-moving” it is necessary for the source at the motion constantly radiate new and new “field” , which has “energy density”/energy, having for that some mystic practically infinite energy – most of the “sources ” in Matter yet now “radiate fields” when constantly move soon 14 billion of years, but remain be the same as were 14 billion of years."[end quote]

Sorry to say this very clearly, but this statement is wrong.

If the force-field is co-moving with its source, absolutely no action from the source is required to keep the status of the field.

The field is not vanishing at its old place and being re-established at the new location. No it only moves unchanged from the old- to the new location..…..”

- again, it is evident that for a “force-field” of a moving with a speed V its source [i.e. just the Force’s charge, which is the “field’s source”] would be co-moving with its source it is necessary for the source constantly radiate the filed, just because of that “the field is not vanishing at its old place”, and acts on, say an other charge that is in an (x,y,z) point in Matter’s space, while the source moves from, say, infinity toward this point,

- so all “old fields” that were radiated by the source at every time moments in every point of its trajectory, which are on the distances to the irradiated charge R such that all these “radiated fields” hit at a given time moment into the “irradiated” charge simultaneously;

- and all these “hitting force fields” are completely independent, i.e. are radiated constantly, always, and completely independently on each other at different time moments.

That is another thing, that the equations for, say, EM field of moving electric charge is given just for the point that the charge really has at a given time moment; and, at that, in the equations the fields are “formed instantly” at every time moments in whole infinite 3D space, though really just at this given time moment [letter “t” in the equations] the “radiating” charge really doesn’t interact with the “irradiated” one at all.

That above – what can happens really in Matter, again, is possible only if the “radiated fields” don’t contain energy, in other case every charge must be source of infinite energy;

- and what happens in this case really, i.e. why really the radiated mediators of at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces – i.e. the Forces’ fields - fundamentally don’t contain energy see the SS posts in the thread and papers that are linked in the posts.

Including in the posts it is pointed, that the rather evident real violation of the energy conservation law in an one free charge case above, wasn’t/ isn’t evident in mainstream physics, because of in the mainstream the phenomena/notions “Force”, “field”, “energy” were/are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, correspondingly, say, in physics more 100 years already some really fantastic “electromagnetic masses of electron” and corresponding fantastic “electron radiuses”, in the GR fantastic “holes in spacetime”, etc., exist,

- while if we consider a system of coupled by a Force charges, the energy conservation law becomes be quite evident, again more see the SS posts and linked in the posts papers.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "...the fields are “formed instantly” at every time moments in whole infinite 3D space,..."

No, since the existence of a charged particle, the force field surrounding that particle has been present. The field always accompanies the particle and co-moves with it. The co-movement does not need any intervention from the field source. Especially it does not need instant renewal.

But the force field needs its energy density. Otherwise it would be powerless and would not be worth its name.

If force fields overlay, their energy density in the overlay region changes. This change of energy density creates a force according to the distance dependency of that energy change. This is a local force, because that energy dependency is proportional to the forth power of the distance to the field source. There is absolutely no remote impact at a distance.

Wolfgang Konle,

- I as a rule don’t comment posts of rather few, but regrettably too vivid, posters who write about their “alternative approaches” and/or of a few simply special spammers, all of which are completely ignorant about physics, for a couple of reasons

– first of all that the posted by them quite unscientific trash is evident for any educated enough in this case physicist, and – it is impossible to explain anything in physics for a human, who is quite ignorant, and any comment in such case only causes a next fullstop posts , what can be endless process, since the ignorance makes that easy; and a participation in which only doubles – really in most cases deliberate on RG - spamming.

In already a number of SS posts it is clearly explained what are “Electromagnetic Quanta and Gravitational Quanta (Gravitons)”, etc.; and so the thread question is answered in SS posts yet on first this thread pages;

- including in SS posts that comment your rather strange posts; that was since some your posts a couple of years ago looked as that you, unlike other “discoverers” indeed are physically educated.

However this discussion looks as is too long already, while your posts remain be too strange ones. So, again, if you really want to know the answer to the thread question, and not only, you should read the SS posts and links in the posts, here only to

“…Sergey Shevchenko [SS quote]"...the fields are “formed instantly” at every time moments in whole infinite 3D space,..."[end quote]

- I repeat that above and what is in this SS post passage a bit else “…That is another thing, that the equations for, say, EM field of moving electric charge is given just for the point that the charge really has at a given time moment; and, at that, in the equations the fields are “formed instantly” at every time moments in whole infinite 3D space, though really just at this given time moment [letter “t” in the equations] the “radiating” charge really doesn’t interact with the “irradiated” one at all...”

- while that

……No, since the existence of a charged particle, the force field surrounding that particle has been present. The field always accompanies the particle and co-moves with it. The co-movement does not need any intervention from the field source. Especially it does not need instant renewal.

But the force field needs its energy density. Otherwise it would be powerless and would not be worth its name. ……”

- is too strange claim for a physicist.

Do you learn electrodynamics at all, and, say, read about, say, Liénard–Wiechert potentials, which are in all textbooks that relate to ED seems at least 100 years already? Including, say, that in the equation for scalar Electric filed potential of a moving with a 3D velocity v electric charge Q [that is simplest equation, so is here, the other see textbooks] φ=Q/[R-(vR/c)] [“bold” means 3 D vector]:

- “R” is 3D coordinates of all points in whole Matter’s spacetime relating to given 3D coordinates of Q point position in given moment, and “φ” is the potential values in these points, which are as they are in the equation simultaneously at every give time moment, since are formed just by “current” potentials that were radiated by Q on all its trajectory before the given “recent” time moment/position,

- and these in the equation potentials values have no any relation to what Qradiates in the given time moment – see the quoted SS passage above.

Etc., again, all what relates to the thread question and to some points in your posts that can be commented rationally, is given in the SS posts above and links in the posts, while this posting looks as tooo long already.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Sorry to say that, but repeatedly referencing to any written wrong text does not help. By denying field energy density, standard physics is making an embarrassing error. Please read the following short text, which explains the error in detail:

How gravity and gravitational waves really work

Like all forces, the gravitational force also is exerted by force fields. Two fundamental laws now pulverize the concept of potential energy as a cause of forces and the plane wave approach of deriving radiation, emitted by an accelertated charge. It turns out that the energy content of force fields is the fundamental reason for the two natural laws, outlined in the text below. It is incomprehensible, how the fundamental context, described in the following, could be ignored by theoretical physics, during such a long period.

Yes, gravity is fundamentally classic in the sense that it is obeying the energy-force relation like all forces:

The force on an object, which contributes to a force field, is given by the directional derivative of the energy content in the field overlay, in respect to the distance of the object and the field source.

This is the universal force law, which holds for all forces in our world, including the gravitational force.

There is another fundamental context about radiation emitted by accelerated field sources:

Force fields are exactly co-moving with their source. If the field source gets accelerated, a radiative field component occurs, which propagates with the speed of light. This component has a periodic and an aperiodic part. After the acceleration has ended and the aperiodic part has passed, this aperiodic part has modified the field to again co-moving with its source, but now with the new velocity. The periodic part is fulfilling the wave equation in combination with the aperiodic part.

The radiation law outlined above also holds for all kinds of force fields and it includes the emission and propagation of gravitational waves. The aperiodic part has not been considered in the theory of theoretical physics, which considers the radiation emitted by an accelerated charge. This theory is based on a plane wave approach without any relation to an aperiodic process.

Both laws, the force law and the radiation law, proof that the statically co-moving force fields contan an energy density. This proof makes the concept of potential energy as a source of the gravitational force obsolete.

It is an embarrassing fallacy of theoretical physics to disregard both fundamental classical facts, the force law and the aperiodic part of the radiation law.

Before we try to extend and deeply understand all relativity and quantum aspects, we must have deeply understood all classical aspects.

And then you argue merely from the classical viewpoint and try to show that only that viewpoint is good!

Raphael Neelamkavil "And then you argue merely from the classical viewpoint and try to show that only that viewpoint is good!"

No, but:

Before we try to extend and deeply understand all relativity and quantum aspects, we must have deeply understood all classical aspects.