Dear Jerry,

If you examine the easy to calculate electromagnetic equations of Section X - Relativistic equation valid for photons and massive particles" in this paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

and test the equations with any carrying energy value in joules for the electron, you will discover such a small scale mechanism that applies the limit of c to the speed of the electron, and you will end up understanding why.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

A small scale mechanism is entirely satisfactory for the present question. Your reply is much like the one Albert Einstein made for magnetic fields in his Autobiographical Notes of 1949.

"according to Maxwell's theory, the magnetic field of a moving electric charge represents inertia."

The present question is asking about objects in general including uncharged objects. Einstein continued.

"Why not then total inertia?"

The proof is more difficult without EM and Maxwell. Limitation of light speed is well accepted. Also reasonably well accepted is that light speed limitation is a property of vacuum space. The final link is not found in science, how the light speed of vacuum becomes a limitation of physical objects passing through space.

I suppose your answer could be applied on a quantum scale to atoms of the physical object. The usual object is held together by electric forces even if it has no net charge. So your EM answer could be offered for every object on a small scale in answer to Einstein's question. One amount of inertia might apply for an uncharged object, plus an extra amount of inertia spread over larger space if there is net electric charge.

The difficulty is that total inertia of the uncharged object is related to mass, and the mass is related to nucleus. It is suggesting that some other force than EM is involved in mechanism of c limit applied to physical object.

Dear Jerry,

There might be a contradiction or definition issue.

If we take vacuum as emptiness, no matter, no particles, no nothing so vacuum then considering an object wether small or big travelling through vacuum breaks the vacuum hypothesis in the first place.

An object flowing through vacuum breaks vacuum state.

Dear Albert,

Thank you for response. Empty vacuum is an SR concept. Vacuum is empty of some things but not of others. There is distance and something of media to fill it, not material media, but energy fields and vacuum fluctuations. Already in GR vacuum has media with optical properties that can be changed by gravity.

I quote Albert Einstein from his technical book The Meaning of Relativity page 56 in my Barns and Noble edition.

"In order to develop this idea within the limits of modern theory of action through a medium, the properties of space-time continuum that determine inertia must be regarded as field properties of space,"

If vacuum contained nothing then each object traveling through it would break the vacuum hypothesis in a different way related to the object not to the vacuum. Only a small set of types for EM polarizations and optical curvatures of vacuum are observed although many objects of different types are found passing through.

Much is known about the physical laws, but little is understood about where the laws reside in nature and how they find expression in actions. The laws appear to be the same everywhere and always available without time delay for a distant communication.

I have suggested that physical laws reside in microstates of vacuum space and occupy a small volume per complete set, but a somewhat larger volume than is involved in a quantum interaction of fundamental particles. In this way the quantum event does not encounter a complete set of laws, but is governed by chance and probability, even though the average of 30 or so similar events always finds the classical laws.

The present question is asking how limit of light speed becomes connected to a moving object. If the limit came with the object, then different objects should have different limits. It seems that to always have the same limit it must be a part of the space-time medium Einstein wrote about.

Dear Jerry,

You are right about what Einstein wrote.

Note however that he passed away in 1955, before the internal volume of protons and neutrons were explored via non-destructive scattering with sufficiently energetic electrons in 1966-1968 right after the SLAC accelerator began operation.

So he never knew that there exists no such thing as "neutral masses".

So we know now that the total inertia of larger bodies can only be provided by charged elementary masses making up their constituting atoms and their carrying energy.

Nothing other than the EM properties of elementary particles is required to completely explain inertia.

It was Paul Marmet who provided in 2003 the key to understanding the relation between the magnetic field of elementary particles and classical mass.

This is summarized in the referred paper, and is explained further in many other papers.

Best Regards

André

Thanks again André,

Your comments are always helpful. Paul Marmot published a lot of original work, much of it at his own expense. His work did not pass the peer review and was not accepted by a majority of researchers. That was a long time ago when new ideas were not welcome.

At present a large number of researchers are receptive to extensions of GR especially in the high energy range where the c limit applies.

Every connection to EM is supporting the question of proof for interactions between vacuum and moving objects.

I feel that the limit of light speed is sufficient proof of a general interaction between objects and vacuum space. Other proofs are welcome.

Dear Jerry,

Thank you for your appreciation of my comments.

One last comment regarding the fact that Marmet's discovery on the increasing magnetic field of the accelerating electron did not pass peer-review on this issue and was not accepted by a majority of researchers, is that it has to do with the inability of these peer-reviewers and researchers to relate his discovery with the fact that it directly explains for the first time the experimental data collected by Walter Kaufman more than 100 years ago from easily repeatable hands-on experiments, mainly due to the fact that the Kaufman and Abraham articles regarding these repeatable experiments, that were effectively peer-reviewed and recognized by their German speaking peers and other researchers that could read German in the first decade of the 20th century, never were translated to English to be made available to the world-wide scientific community, that is, all the peer-reviewers of Marmet's work and most current researchers who can't read German and are not even aware of these experiments, after the Einstein-Lorentz model was preferred to the Abraham-Kaufman model, despite the fact that Poincare, respected by all even today, was in favor of the later model.

The loss is for these peer-reviewers and researchers, not for Marmet.

I made quite certain already that the upcoming generation will not remain in the same limbo on this issue.

Best Regards

André

Dear Jerry,

If interested in seeing how seamlessly Marmet's discovery harmonizes with Maxwell's equations, and what insight it gives into a possible Maxwell equations compliant localized photon description and similarity with the electron carrying energy, you will find this development in this paper, that I submitted in 2005, without much expectation that it would be published, to the same Kazan State U engineering journal in which Marmet's paper had previously been published.

To my surprise, 2 years later, in 2007, after I had practically forgotten I had made this submission, I was informed by the then co-editor, Dr Lyudmila Kuzmina, that my paper had been peer-reviewed, translated to Russian, and was published in their journal, with no requirement other than that I provide what they called "an extended abstract". No payment was required for publication, so I surmise that Marmet did not have to pay either:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257

Best Regards

André

Our familiar space time is 4D. Near light speed there are two varieties of 4D and a transformation between them. One system is space like and familiar. The other is time like and very unfamiliar. We make guesses and struggle with questions of light speed because we have only half the science needed to understand it.

In other threads and publications I have found a way to combine the two systems into a 6D system that can be constructed and measured. It meets the requirements of both space like and time like systems.

When a coordinate system is constructed of three velocity base units like vectors or tensors instead of distance base units, a separate clock can be attached to each velocity component. It is 6D and measurable. In fact the new system can be expanded with three electroscopes and three magnetometers into a 12D super symmetry, still constructible and measurable. It displeases almost everyone but provides a provable system.

When a strict cosmic super symmetry is not required the 12D can become modified symmetry 10D, or 11D by deleting something, or become one of the non symmetric systems, example 26D by adding accelerometers and additional velocity components at various orientations to carry the meters. It is still constructible and provable.

In the minimum 6D, the 5th dimension is a second dimension of time because of the time like legacy , but also generates the Maxwell equations of Kaluza Klein. It lacks a 6th dimension and describes no mass movement. The EM photon moves at light speed and is timeless in that direction. Sending a charged particle with mass requires the 6th dimension because it moves less than light speed. The 6th dimension is a third dimension of time and also generates a mass potential. Near light speed the additional dimensions must become significant.

In the present question we are discussing how the object with mass is governed by the limit of light speed or even measures how fast it is moving. The suggestion is made in both cases that the object interacts with the space-time through which it is moving. To avoid arguments with GR, the interaction is suggested to be in quanta.

Dears.

I read this conversation carefully. Such a mesmerizing picture of human's ability to demonstrate his thoughts.

I am not a mathematician nor a physicist. I will be glad to be informed if there is or there are any logical or scientific mistakes

.

Lets take a look at the main question:

Is The Limitation Of Light Speed Evidence That An Object Interacts With The Vacuum Space It Moves Through?

As Jerry mentioned many times, the limited speed of light is tied to vacuum space. but lets a closer look. why the Vacuum lets us to imagine about its ability to support phase velocity of propagation EM wave (i.e. the light) to be equal to "c".

In deep space, based on some calculations of NASA official, there is one hydrogen electron per ten cubic inches of space. there are almost no matter to interact with EM wave. in fact, prior to applying the EM wave in that cubic volume of space, it will act just like a CAPACITOR and the EM wave is required to charge it. based on Maxwell equation the capacity of this cubic space depends on its composition and minimizes for vacuum.

Now lets consider the same cubic volume in Deep Space. it is closed system and law of Conservation of Energy must be hold. It is clear and understandable that harmonious dance of electric and magnetic filed play the rule of CARRIER to carry the energy to our target cubic volume and the energy requires some time to propagate through that. but what about a charge-less moving mass?

Such a mass is uncharged but is not without energy. As it is not stationary, it delivers some kinetic energy in our target cubic volume in Deep Space. but this time the CARRIER has mass. Now lets see what will feel the CUBIC volume. something (which is not clear what is that, EM wave? moving particle?) increased its energy; and again this energy requires some time to be propagated. there will be two possible way to propagate energy in cubic volume:

1) mass-centered energy: i.e. its kinetic energy which is certainly follows the speed of particle.

2) any radiated energy: if we assume the radiated energy form the particle travels at speeds higher than "c", there will be some contradiction. as far as we know any radiate energy propagates at higher possible speed through the space which is governed by composition of that space. this was our target cubic space will show two different behavior for propagation of two identical waves.

Dear Ahmad,

The whole issue of a "interaction with the vacuum of space" is grounded on the only definition ever made of transverse waves that was established from observing at our macroscopic level how a pulse travels along a rigid cord, for example.

Later, when the transverse shear-waves travelling through rigid substances were understood (for example the s-waves that are used to sound the nature of the Earth in geology), this confirmed the only existing current definition of how a transverse wave could mechanically exist in nature.

If you look up the definition of shear waves (or transverse waves) in any good reference work such as "Fundamentals of Geophysics, by William Lowrie", or any good undergrad textbook, you will see that to even exist and propagate, such transverse waves can only involve that some solid material "substance" oscillates transversely while the wave propagates longitudinally in the material, but that the material "substance" proper is unable to move longitudinally.

You may look as far back in the formal literature, you will find no other definition of transverse waves.

Since such transverse oscillation mandatorily requires an elastic recall force to exist, such waves cannot propagate in fluid media or in absence of any medium.

This is why, after he understood that electromagnetic energy could only oscillate transversely while moving in vacuum, Maxwell needed to conceived of what we name the "ether" that, according to the only known definition, would behave as a theoretically solid "substance" that could transversely oscillate, but would not move longitudinally, but that in the case of the "ether" never could be detected, which is paradoxical since it needs to be a rigid "substance" to longitudinally allow the wave to propagate.

This is what is at the origin of the idea that if the vacuum would be such a substance, then bodies moving through it have to interact with it.

However, there is another possibility that has never been analyzed before in fundamental physics, but that stems out of de Broglie`s conclusions about his double-particle photon hypothesis, which is in complete agreement with Maxwell's equations, even if it doesn't need any ether to explain energy propagation.

These conclusions imply that the "substance" of localized EM quanta would behave as if they would move "longitudinally point-like" while their local energy "substance" transversely oscillates in standing mode between electric and magnetic states.

This hypothesis requires no underlying carrying medium behaving as a solid material if the longitudinally point-like behaving localized quantum provides its own momentum energy, which seems to be the case for the de Broglie double-particle photon, as definable in full accordance with Maxwell's equations.

From this perspective, the longitudinal electromagnetic wavelength need not be a "longitudinal-oscillation" of some underlying medium, but simply becomes the "distance" that the "longitudinally-point-like-behaving" EM quantum needs to travel in vacuum for one of its transverse EM oscillation to be completed.

You will find the description of this Maxwell-compliant de Broglie double-particle photon here:

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

If this really is how electromagnet energy propagates, then this new definition of transverse "standing waves" that can propagate without a longitudinal oscillating component needs to be further analyzed, since it needs no underlying carrying "substance" that would oscillate transversely, but would be unable to move longitudinally, such as the concept of "ether" and the current definition of transverse waves require.

Indeed, vacuum would then be simple "emptiness", void of any underlying substance to be interacted with. This would logically resolve the long standing conundrum of whether the "ether" exists or not.

Also, this concept explains why massive elementary charged particles cannot reach the velocity of light, which for them is an asymptotic velocity limit, and also why free EM energy can only move at c from the equal separation of their propelling momentum energy, and propelled transversely oscillating other half quantum.

Best Regards

André

Curvature of space-time on a large scale indicates an optical refraction in vacuum on a smaller scale. The question remains about whether the optical properties always reside in vacuum or the properties are induced when needed. Consistency of natural laws is suggesting that the properties always reside in space.

In assigning optical refracting properties to space-time medium , GR has invoked the science of classical optics in which the propagation of a wave front is described by considering every point in the medium to behave like a separate small oscillator. Richard Feynman applied the same principle in his lectures and recognized it to represent a collection of quantum events which combine to appear as a wave front.

From curvature in GR it can be inferred that vacuum space is made up of small oscillators, close together and in large numbers. Small size in QM means high energy density, although GR requires the large scale space-time to be nearly flat. The energy in vacuum must be of two or more types that compete for control of curvature.

When we ask where the energy comes from to enforce the natural laws against any challenge researchers can make, the vacuum energy seems to be the only supply of sufficient strength and power to enforce the natural laws. Then the laws may reside in energy states of the vacuum oscillators. In this context the vacuum energy is fully engaged to enforce the laws. Light speed is one of the laws. Energy might be borrowed briefly according to Heisenberg Uncertainty, but is promptly collected according to conservation laws.

QFT in the past has computed infinite energy potential for vacuum, which is not satisfactory. When there are two types of energy competing, about half kinetic and about half potential, then the Lagrangian Density is nearly zero giving nearly flat space in a large energy field. This approach creates enough additional equations to solve for the unknowns, resulting in a total vacuum energy that is found to very large but finite.

Finite energy enforcing light speed suggests there is some limit to the enforcement. In other threads extreme challenge of the limitation has been explored in topics of scale relativity, hierarchy of Plancks, and squeezed quantum states.

In the present question we are discussing the mechanisms by which light speed limitation is applied to an object, and whether or not the limitation is enforced by vacuum space and the vacuum energy.

Although a seemingly obscure topic, all the answers make a large difference in the eventual possibilities for exploration of space.

Thanks to everyone for opinions.

I am more inclined to the view that light and gravity have a specific and calculable (though tiny) interaction; that the einstinian gravity based curvature of space is the primary cause of effects like gravity lensing and wavelength changes.

This offers a much simpler model and gets away from the idea that there must be something other than transient (IE passing through) energy in a vacuum. 

I do appreciate that the simple answer is not always the right one but the complex answers do seem to fail more often.