The reason was established by Maxwell in the 1860's that the vectorial cross-product of perpendicular electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic energy results the velocity of light in a direction perpendicular to the vectorial direction of both fields.
Moreover, he calculated this velocity by means of second partial derivative of Gauss and Ampere equations:
http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue4/G0704032039.pdf
This has been confirmed ever since to match physical reality.
More recently, de Broglie defined the characteristics that localized electromagnetic photons must have for them to obey Maxwell's equations:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
Your question seem to be philosophy... no body knows why there is a maximum speed limit, there just is. However, we understand this in the context of special and general relativity - which have there roots in the work of Maxwell.
The physical reason is the causal structure of space-time. Thinking of Minkowski space-time, this is really equivalent to the Poincare transformations and the statement that while there is no privileged choice of observer, there is a privileged choice of a class of observers - the inertial ones. The causal structure tells you what points in space-time can communicate with each other, the usual diagram here is the famous cone. All of special relativity is encoded in this causal structure.
You can then look at relativistic wave equations on Minkowski space-time and examine their group velocities. You will get an upper bound of c. (Unless you start of think of negative mass squared or something like that.)
“Why are there light speed particles in the universe?”
here is no problem, though the answer isn’t in that
“…The physical reason is the causal structure of space-time…”
Any spacetime hasn’t some “causal structure”, besides that it has for concrete informational systems concrete number and content of its dimesions; in the rest any spacetime is nothing more then some “empty container”, where concrete system exists [the space], and, if the system is dynamical, i.e., changes, besides the space there are some time dimensions also. Emptiness cannot have some stucture at all, including, of course, “causal” one.
The Matter’s spacerime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container in the reality / manifold in physical theories. Which, with very non-zero probability is indeed filled by some “causal” material structure, an “ether”, which is the dense 4D lattice of 4D fundamental logical elemens (FLE); when FLEs “switch” a neighbor FLEs after some FLE is imacted by some force.
That is possible just because of the Matter’s spacetime, including corresponding 4D sub-spacetime, is absolute, and the lattice is at the absolute rest in the sub-spacetime; when if
“…. Thinking of Minkowski space-time, this is really equivalent to the Poincare transformations and the statement that while there is no privileged choice of observer, there is a privileged choice of a class of observers - the inertial ones. ….”
that is evidently impossible in the objective reality. Just because of this fact from the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and so that all/every inertial reference frames are completely equivalent and legitimate any number of evidently logically and physically absurd consequences directly and unambiguously follow [more see the SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_actual_physical_meaning_of_the_Lorentz_Transformations?view=5bcc82f084a7c12063181457]
Matter is the dynamical logical system, where material objects, i.e., particles, bodies, etc. are some disturbances in the lattice that appeared after in the lattice a huge portion of energy was pumped at Beginning. Further, because of the energy conservation law every object constantly and always changes its internal state or/and its spatial position.
This process of these changes realize itself as that every material object constantly and always moves in the 4D sub-spacetime. Since all changes are sequential flipping of FLEs, which are 4D universal [i.e. in the3D space and in the 1D “coordinate time” [“τ”] in the sub-spacetime], all/every the objects constantly always move in the sub-spacetime with 4D speeds that have identical absolute values [in metrics (cτ,x,y,z)] be equal to the standard speed of light, c. There is no particles, bodies, etc. that move with other speeds, however in Matter there are two main types of the objects:
- “T-objects”, that are created by temporal components of 4D momentums, so they always move along the cτ –axis. If an T-object is at absolute spatial rest, it moves in this time with the speed of light, if such object is impacted by spatial momentum and so moves in the 3D space also, its spatial speed is, because of the cτ-axis is orthogonal to any spatial line, including x/y/z-axes, as that Pythagoras prescribed, lesser then c, when its speed in the time is lesser then c also, in the Lorentz-factor. Since the motion in the time is changing of the objects’ internal states, the internal proceses, for example in a particle, slow down, and so, for example an unstable particle that moves in the space lives longer in the Lorentz factor; and
- “S-objects”, that are created by spatial components of 4D momentums, so they always move only in the 3D space with the speed of light, for example that are photons; though with a very non-zero probability that can be gravitons also.
That’s all relating to the thread’s question, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494
Cheers
Dear Robert, I studied that question in the following:
Preprint Which Physical Process Regulates the Constant Speed of Light?
This will certainly interest you, because I start from several angles to the conclusion of a physical process.
This paper is linked to an earlier study that you will also find on that web page, part of the project.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re-examining-post-1905-physics
However, there is another phenomenon that can interest you, and that allows particles to get the speed of light:
Article Relativistic velocity stabilization of particle sets in gravity fields
Since in that case we talk of particles with a restmass, it is a special case, very different from light waves, only applicable in a gravity field.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
The question I asked was" Why are there particles that CAN travel at the speed of light?" We know why there are particles that can't travel at the speed of light, and why. They can not because in E = m c^2 = m(0) c^2 gamma, where gamma is the Lorentz factor. Gamma is infinity at lightspeed and there is not enough energy in the whole Universe to make one of these particles travel at lightspeed. Obviously lightspeed particles do not obey this equation, Einstein's E = mc^2. So what equation do they obey? The answer can be found in my paper Photodynamics:How massive photons, gravitons, gluons, and neutrinos manage to travel at the speed of light.
The important observation is that the Universe is composed of only two types of particles, particles that can't travel at the speed of light (atomic particles), and particles that can. Lightspeed particles vastly outnumber atomic particles in the Universe, so it is important to know what law governs their motion. It is not Einstein's E = mc^2, even if you say m(0) = 0 as shown in my paper. A new fundamental Law of nature is needed and it is Photodynamics. If there are any questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
Bob Martineau
The physical cause would be the reason why lightspeed particles exist. Atomic particles can't travel at the speed of light because their relativistic masses , m = m(0) x gamma, go to infinity at lightspeed, so there is not enough energy in the entire Universe to make one go at lightspeed. That is why they exist as particles that can't travel at the speed of light. What makes lightspeed particles go at the speed of light?
Dear Robert,
That you call a “reason”
“…Atomic particles can't travel at the speed of light because their relativistic masses , m = m(0) x gamma, go to infinity at lightspeed, so there is not enough energy in the entire Universe to make one go at lightspeed. ….”
isn’t indeed reason, that is the consequence of the fact that all/every material objects move in the 4D sub-space of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime only with 4D speeds of light. Besides, all/every particles are in Matter only of 2 types, depending on by what 4D momentum they are created: or by a momentum that was directed along the [coordinate time] time axis in the 4D sub-spacetime, i.e. “T-particles” [that you call “atomic particles”]; and the particles that are created by 3D spatially directed momentums, i.e. “S-particles”, that are photons and gravitons, possibly there are some unknown such particles also, but that seems as can be with rather small probability.
Since the time-axis in the sub-spacetime is fundamentally orthogonal to any 3D spatial line/direction, when an T-particle is impacted by spatially directed momentum Px
[humans directly can use only such momentums since can use to impact on something only EM force, which acts in such cases only in 3D space. Though in some physical situations photons can create time-directed momentums, so, for example, electron-positron pairs are created, but the total momentums of created pair has, nonetheless, zero temporal component],
the momentum p0=m0c that a particle obtained at its creation cannot be changed.
I.e. it [more correctly its absolute value, for example in the pair above the time components of 4D momentums of electron and positron are p0e=m0c and p0p=-m0c] remains be always more then zero. Correspondingly, in accordance with the Pythagoras theorem, the particle’s 4D momentum after the spatial impact is P=mc, [bold means 4D vector] the particle’s energy is equal E=Pc, and m=m0/(1-V2/c2)1/2, Px=mV, where V so always is lesser then c.
Cheers
Dear Robert,
You asked: "How massive photons, gravitons, gluons, and neutrinos manage to travel at the speed of light."
It is possible in an existing gravity field, for particles at Planck scale.
See the second paper reference that I gave in my last post.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Andre,
The question is more "Why are there particles that travel at the speed of light?" We know why there are particles that don't, like atomic particles. Their masses in E = = mc^2 are m = m(0)xgamma where gamma goes to infinity at u = c, so they can't go at u = c. They can't find the needed energy. There are two types of particles: those that do and those that don't (go at c). Why? What makes a particle go at the speed of light? I ask the question because there is a correct answer. It can be found in my paper Photodynamics. The answer I expected from nearly everybody is that there are particles, like the photon, that have a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. So the answer I expected is that in the Universe some particles have zero rest masses and have to go at the speed of light. I just wanted all of you to know that this answer is wrong. All particles have a non-zero rest mass. The real reason is more complicated. See Photodynamics.
Dear Andrew,
My question was not why is there a maximum velocity, c? The question is why are there particles that travel at that speed. We know why atomic particles can't travel at the speed of light, but why does the photon go at the speed of light?
Dear Paul,
Except for atomic particles, it is not correct to say that c is an unreachable speed limit. It is not unreachable for the photons and other particles that travel at the speed of light, like neutrinos, gravitons, and gluons. In fact, the vast majority of the particles in the Universe are those that travel at the speed of light. They have no trouble going at that speed. In fact, they are constantly pushed to go at that speed, unlike atomic particles. See Photodynamics for the full reason why.
Robert J Martineau
Reading the other posts you have made, your questions boils down to E = mc^2. Well, that equation only holds in the rest frame of the particle in question. Photons, for example, do not have a rest frame and so this equation is invalid. You need to look at the more general equation known as the mass-shell condition. It is really the equation of motion for free particles moving in Minkowski space-time. The equation you want is
E^2 - p^2 = m^2
in units where c =1. This holds in all inertial frames and for massless particles, which travel at the speed of light. You can deduce this using the four-momentum, how it is related to the four-velocity and then the mass-shell condition with m=0.
Dear Robert,
I agree with you.
Note that from the electromagnetic perspective, which is the angle that I have analyzed the whole issue from, the concept of "mass" resolves as being "omnidirectional inertia", which means that electromagnetic quanta electromagnetically oscillating in standing transverse mode will oppose a resistance to being displaced in space whichever direction they are interacted with. This can be seen as the electromagnetic definition of mass.
I read your paper and this is consistent with your analysis carried out from the relativistic mechanics angle.
From de Broglie's hypothesis about localized electromagnetic photons, half the energy of a localized photon must oscillate in this standing transverse mode while the other half remains in vectorially unidirectional momentum motion, propelling the longitudinally inert other half (which is in transverse electromagnetic standing oscillation).
From his hypothesis, it is this half-half equilibrium split between the longitudinal unidirectional momentum energy and the transversely oscillating other half that has as a consequence that the resulting velocity of any electromagnetic photon is the speed of light, which means that c is an "equilibrium velocity".
This is why there are particles travelling at the speed of light.
If interested, you can find the complete explanation in this paper:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
Thanks to a major discovery by Paul Marmet published in 2003, who succeeded in relating the magnetic field of an accelerating electron to its velocity related relativistic mass increment, it can now be mathematically explained why electrons cannot reach the speed of light, from the electromagnetic perspective.
From the electromagnetic perspective, the total "rest mass" of the electron is in such a transverse electromagnetic oscillation standing mode, so that all of its energy is "omnidirectionally inert" in space.
The fundamental reason why it cannot reach the speed of light is then that the "carrying energy" of a moving electron can only have the same structure as the de Broglie localized photon (from Marmet's discovery), which is one half remaining unidirectional as momentum propelling energy, while the other half transversely oscillates just like the energy of the electron rest mass, and constitutes the relativistic mass increment that adds to the electron rest mass.
It is the physical impossibility for the momentum energy half of the electron carrying energy that unidirectionally propels the electron to ever become equal to the sum of its own other half (the relativistic mass increment) plus the total rest mass of the electron that prevents it from ever reaching the speed of light, however energetic this carrying energy can be.
If interested, this electromagnetic perspective of electron acceleration is analyzed and mathematically demonstrated in this paper, titled "From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell":
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197
This also explains (from the electromagnetic perspective) why the speed of light cannot be exceeded by massive particles, since for them this is an asymptotic limit.
Best Regards
André
Dear Robert,
I am afraid that you misunderstood the meaning of the propagation of waves. Light is an electromagnetic wave, which has a characteristic propagation speed, and this speed is defined by the properties of the medium in which it propagates: the internal tension and the density.
It transports momentum and energy, but it is no particle.
A tsunami also transports momentum and energy, but it is no particle. If the surface of the water is flat and calm, nothing happens, no wave exists, neither a particle.
The possibility that particles would reach the speed of light exists only if Planck scale particles are in free fall in a gravity field. If the particles are larger, they will never reach the speed of light.
I have referred to that twice in this thread, but apparently, you have not seen that. Why?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Andrew,
The equation E = mc^2 = m(0)c^2xgamma is the E that appears in Einstein's E^2 - c^2P^2 = m(0)^2c^4. The variable E is the energy of a particle that goes by at velocity u and depends on u like the Lorentz factor gamma.. Specifically, it goes to infinity as u goes to c. That is why a particle obeying the Einstein equations can't go at the speed of light. It would need infinite energy if the rest mass m(0) is not zero, and there isn't enough energy in the whole Universe to make it go at the speed of light. So the Einstein equations only apply to atomic particles, i.e., to those that can't go at the speed of light. Even putting m(0) equal to zero, as the physics community has been doing for over100 years, can not make the Einstein equations apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. I prove this statement in my paper on Photodynamics found on my site. Please read my proof that the Einstein equations don't apply to any particle that travels at the speed of light. I highly recommend that anyone who follows my comments, indeed to anyone who is interested in Physics, to go through the proof before anything else. If anyone as questions about this proof, especially its validity, please contact me.
In conclusion, E^2 - P^2 = m0)^2 does not apply to the photon, or any other particle that travels at the speed of light. Please become convinced of this, or tell me why not. Because of the truth of this statement, a new fundamental law of nature, which governs the motion of lightspeed particle, like the Einstein equations govern the motion of atomic particles, is needed I have derived this new fundamental law in my paper on Photodynamics. Please read it and enjoy.
Robert,
I now understood that the only purpose you have in this thread is to promote your views and to consider all the rest of the universe as thin air.
In that case, your tunnel vision may be the only existing thuth.... for you!
What are you doing on a forum, then?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Mohamed,
Electromagnetism reveals that not only does mass increases with velocity, it also increases adiabatically with proximity between charged particles.
I can only suggest that you study electromagnetism more deeply:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf
Best Regards
André
Dear Mohamed,
I agree with you and also with Robert. From a materialist dialectical point of view “matter” and “motion” are the primary attributes of objective reality and mass remains invariant at all velocities – there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter. As I have argued in my published works, comments etc., this fundamental materialist view of the world has been undermined by the theories of relativity and the concept of “continuous field”(spacetime, Higgs etc.) as the basis of objective reality initiated by Albert Einstein; to conform with the rationalist notions (of certainty, continuity, determinism, causality etc.) that became threatened with the recognition of the quantum phenomena. In Einstein’s view: “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. “On the General Theory of Relativity”, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
These are thoroughly reactionary, unnecessary and unscientific theories and concepts; masquerading as scientific, but totally negating science. These are sustained through contrived and false “proofs” and are imposed on modern physics to act as the ruling ideas of regressive and decadent monopoly capitalism and as a replacement of discredited theology. Unlike the important theories of classical physics, the theories of relativity in more than hundred years of existence achieved no validation is terms of tangible historical/social/ technological practice (a pre-requisite of any scientific theory and a criteria of positive knowledge); but maintains a parasitic existence like theology.
The question raised by Robert is important. Why some particles (that must have mass) travel at the speed of light and the others seemingly cannot. These are now explained away based on axiomatic theories and the concept of "continuous fields" as the basis of objective reality but not particulate matter. But this limit may not necessarily be true for all cases as Mohamed asserts. In my view the high redshifts of nearby quasars are due to their very high speed of ejection (at considerable fraction of the speed of light for such enormously large objects) from nearby galaxies, please see the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/project/QUASARS-RETROSPECT-PROSPECT-AND-AS-A-POINT-OF-DEPARTURE/update/5ba7b9b4cfe4a76455f5658e
The ejection theory of the quasars (as nearby objects) first proposed by Halton (Chip) Arp and the recent FTL velocity of neutrino documented by the OPERA Team were forcefully discredited because these violate SR. Even some of the particles of cosmic ray may have FTL velocities. But it is true that in practice we see some limits like the velocity c of photons through finite didtances. This limit may be due the presence of some restricting factors like gravitational force exerted by other material bodies, the presence of virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, presence of particulate matter/energy in the intra and intergalactic space etc.
Light speed is the speed of energy and momentum in vacuum space in every direction, controlled by the competition of electric and magnetic polarizations. Everything moves at the vacuum speed, unless the object has a type of symmetry called mass, for which the native vacuum energy is balanced in all directions and not able to transport the object at light speed. In cases of mass the speed is controlled by energy localized in a small space around and inside the object.
Dear Jerry
You are on the right track. I would add that particles are in fact "self-trapped light", which means that by a yet unknown process, it is possible to get light into a closed loop. So, particles are also waves, propagating in the medium that carries all E-M waves.
Only if the particles are at Planck scale and in free fall in a gravity field, they can accelerate until the speed of light, as it has been proven by gravitomagnetism. This is a mechanism to get a process for neutrinos and gravitons propagation.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Robert J Martineau
Please give me the details of your paper in a top physics journal. I am not interested in reading paper on random websites.
Dear Mohamed,
Yes. We discussed this already.
This has nothing to do with XIXth century. This has to do with elementary charged particles since the beginning of the universe. Their behavior did not change since the XIXth century.
You wrote: "Professonal physicists do not use such an obsolete concept and the leading physics journals refuse to publish articles containing the expression m = m0(1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½"
If you were right, this would mean that these professional physicists and peer-reviewers would be totally ignorant of electromagnetism, as has been from the beginning the whole segment of academia that has been keeping on watering the shrivelled SR/GR tree.
In particles accelerators, they are not using the relativistic mechanics equations that you mention. From the beginning, they have been exclusively using variations of the Lorentz force equation F=q(E + v x B), because they guide charged particles by modulating the relative densities of both E and B fields in which charged particles are made to move, according to these relative densities and intensities.
Ref : Humphries S Jr (1986) Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration, John Wiley & Sons.
Moreover, the Lorentz gamma factor ((1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½) is built into the Lorentz force equation, and can be derived from electromagnetic equations.
It is an integral part of electromagnetism, contrary to what you think, and always was.
Once again, I can only recommend that you study electromagnetism more deeply.
Best Regards
André
Dear Mohamed,
You wrote: "Historically, Lorentz force F = q(E + v x B) belongs to the classical electromagnetism since it is just a generalisation of Coulomb's law."
Not so. It is not a generalization of the Coulomb law, since it involves only one charged particle by definition, being set in motion by its carrying energy.
The Gauss equation for the electric field (Maxwell's first equation) is a generalization of the Coulomb law. It directly resolves to the Coulomb force equation if you insert a second charge anywhere in the field of the test charge.
Maxwell disagreed with any view that both electric and magnetic fields would not mutually time wise induce each other as they move, since this is what allows explaining why electromagnetic energy can move at c in vacuum. So Jefimenko`s view is contrary to fundamental electromagnetism. There is no such thing as any retarded time propagation of energy. It simply moves at c in vacuum.
You wrote: "Relativistic electromagnetism is nothing but the covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism which refers to ways of writing the laws of classical electromagnetism (in particular, Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force) in a form that is manifestly invariant under LT, in the formalism of SRT using IRFs."
In what you wrote, there are at least two disconnects with respect to electromagnetism and physical reality.
First, there can exist no such thing as an inertial reference frame in physical reality.
Either physically existing charged particles or macroscopic massive bodies are accelerating in freefall or else they are stabilized into some least action dynamic electromagnetic equilibrium states.
Second, SRT is incompatible with Maxwell's first equation (Gauss's equation for the electric field), because so-called length contraction involves that the electronic orbitals of all atoms making up such length-contracting bodies would be adiabatically compressed closer to their respective nuclei, which would cause more energy to be induced in these bodies.
Nowhere have I found any mention of this in SRT literature nor have I discussed with anybody who could explain this disconnect between SRT and Maxwell's equations.
Be my guest if you have an answer to this discrepancy.
You wrote: "Therefore, in relativistic electromagnetism, the explicit presence of gamma factor γ = (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ in some formulae is mainly due to LT."
No. it is not due to any LT. It was built in already.
You will find its derivation from an electromagnetic equation for the moving electron in Section XII in this paper titled "From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell":
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197
The gamma factor always was part of Maxwell's electromagnetism and is intrinsically present in the Lorentz force equation. This becomes obvious when you separate the E and B fields of the electron rest mass energy from those of its carrying energy, and re-associate them in the only manner possible. Described starting on page 16 of this paper titled "Field Equations for Localized Photons and Relativistic Field Equations for Localized Moving Massive Particles":
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257
Equation (61) would not give an exact relativistic velocity if it was otherwise.
The context is that in physical reality, electromagnetism is inherently relativistic, and that SRT is invalid, unless you can explain the SRT/Gauss-equation disconnect.
There is no such thing as "relativistic electromagnetism". There is simply "electromagnetism", that always was relativistic to start with.
Best Regards
André
André Michaud
AM> “Electromagnetism reveals that not only does mass increases with velocity, it also increases adiabatically with proximity between charged particles.”
Dear Andre,
Few things that always bothered me about “New Physics” are the notions of “mass increase”, “time dilation”, “length contraction” etc. As I understand it, for SR, these follow mathematically from Einstein’s axiomatic and absolute truth that velocity of light (c) is a universal constant under any circumstances. Since mass, distance, time velocity, momentum are related to one another it mathematically follows that other factors must vary to keep c a constant under any condition.
But there is no philosophical (please see my article: "Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion”) and as I also claim; no scientific basis of such variation of mass, time, distance etc., at high speed or under any circumstances. Let us take the case of “mass increase” as you suggest in your comment. Please give me a physical picture how this can happen. Mass increase means “additional mass”. Now, what is the nature of the “additional mass” of the proton moving at close to c? Is the “additional mass” of the same kind as the old mass or is it something new? And what happens to that “additional mass” when the proton speed comes down to its initial value before it was accelerated?
I asked this question in the forum of W.W. Engelhardt and also in the one I initiated later on at:https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible?view=5be2110711ec7356160d1929
Engelhardt, like you seems to oppose SR and GR, but insists on the idea of “mass increase”; which I find an inconsistent position. Also for me, the term; m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ apparently makes no sense; on which generations of physicists toilled to work with; apparently with no concern! If mo (the rest mass) is 0, then the whole right-hand side becomes 0 and the whole relation becomes meaningless. This is the reason I support Robert’s assertion that particles with the speed of c or more must possess mass; if LT and SR has to make any sense at all! The relativists in both the above forums (for some reason they conspicuously avoid making any more comments now) seem oddly divided on this question. Majority of them support “mass increase”, “time dilation” etc. But only one; Prof. Eric Lord seemed to me to be most sensible. He asserted that all these effects are “not real” but are “apparent” to a distant observer in IRF; it is more or less like Doppler effect.
Now, please give me a rational answer and NOT the ones based on “experimental results” from the accelerators or from mathematics; Engelhardt does the same. I had collected about 10 – 12 references of published papers (dating back to early accelerators) on the "mass increase" of various quantum particles and posted somewhere in RG. But I have no confidence in any of them, nor on the “discoveries” of Higgs boson; GW and centuries long “proofs” of the theories of relativity. But all seem to be contrived or even false claims. If these were true, only one or even none but only with one tangible historical/social/technological practice would have been good enough for me!
This charade of “proofs’ initiated by Arthur Eddington (bending of starlight by the sun) was enough for Anglo-American led monopoly capitalism to make these theories as ruling ideas and aggressively promoted these in all sorts of ways. Eddington’s comment (from memory) after his earth-shaking “proof” : “Any experimental data are valid only when supported by a good theory” became an edict that no career loving physicists dare violate and it had been the same since Eddington. It means that experimental data must conform to the theory and not the other way around! Very recently, I cited in RG an article (link below) authored by about one hundred astrophysicists, who aimed to “prove” GR by studying the effect of the central “black hole” of the Milky Way galaxy on some nearby test objects. The introduction of the paper starts with the following words, “ General Relativity (GR) so far has passed all experimental tests with flying colours (Einstein 1916; Will 2014).” This said everything! My question is why did they bother to do or say anything else at all!https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326629088_Detection_of_the_gravitational_redshift_in_the_orbit_of_the_star_S2_near_the_Galactic_centre_massive_black_hole/comments
Dear Mohamed,
You wrote: "Historically, Lorentz force F = q(E + v x B) belongs to the classical electromagnetism since it is just a generalisation of Coulomb's law."
Yes, indeed, since E is always produced by electrons/charges.
"Relativistic electromagnetism is nothing but the covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism which refers to ways of writing the laws of classical electromagnetism (in particular, Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force) in a form that is manifestly invariant under LT, in the formalism of SRT using IRFs."
Yes indeed, the relativists violated and raped electromagnetism.
"Therefore, in relativistic electromagnetism, the explicit presence of gamma factor γ = (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ in some formulae is mainly due to LT."
Indeed, that is so. It is an idiotic thing without any proof whatsoever.
The theory of Lienard and Wiechert, explaining at the end of the 19th century all the "relativistic" behavior of charges (CERN) etc. has been raped the same way.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Mohamed,
The key to understanding why the gamma factor is an integral part of electromagnetism is related to the momentum kinetic energy equation as defined in SRT with respect to how it can be derived from electromagnetism.
In SRT, it is K = (γ ‒ 1)mc2, as you mention, while in electromagnetism, it is K = (γ ‒ 1)2moc2. It is in fact the complete "carrying energy equation" of an electron, as definable in electromagnetism.
See equation (43) in the paper where the gamma factor is derived. All of this can be derived thanks to Marmet's discovery in 2003.
In addition to providing the relativistic momentum energy of the electron in motion as SRT does, it also provides the velocity related relativistic mass increment that Walter Kaufman identified with his experiments, as measured transversely, in addition to the electron rest mass, for electrons being deflected while moving at relativistic velocities.
At the time, only Poincare seemed to understand the meaning of the Kaufman experiments.
It is this variable mass increment that causes the velocity to increase non linearly, and that introduces the gamma factor. It naturally corresponds to half the energy induced by the Coulomb equation. It always did, but was never identified as such. The SRT equation K = (γ ‒ 1)mc2 does only half the job.
Nobody at the time seemed to understand this. But it becomes obvious with Marmet's discovery that the increase in the magnetic field of an accelerating electron corresponds exactly to this simultaneous increase in the transversely measurable mass of the accelerating electron.
Best Regards
André
Dear Abdul,
I will comment only on your first paragraph, for now, because I must rush to my day's work. I will read the remainder tonight and comment further.
You wrote: " Few things that always bothered me about “New Physics” are the notions of “mass increase”, “time dilation”, “length contraction” etc. As I understand it, for SR, these follow mathematically from Einstein’s axiomatic and absolute truth that velocity of light (c) is a universal constant under any circumstances. Since mass, distance, time velocity, momentum are related to one another it mathematically follows that other factors must vary to keep c a constant under any condition"
What I am explaining is not "new physics" it is "misunderstood physics".
Contrary to “time dilation” and “length contraction” that were introduced by Voight and picked up by all to establish the gamma factor and that are at the origin of SRT, and that does not include "mass increment" as Mohamed rightfully states, and that is used instead of actual mass increment, mass increment is the actual real deal that electromagnetism always integrated but that nobody explored. See my last comment to Mohamed.
Einstein took c as an axiomatic velocity. But it is a "derived velocity", derived by Maxwell 40 years previously. This has nothing to do with "mathematics" as such. This is derived from analysis of the then available pool of experimental data.
No other factors need to vary for c to remain constant.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
SRT cannot produce force fields, and doesn't describe force fields.
Hence, special relativity doesn't give any change to objects themselves.
It is only about the perception at a distance: 100 different observers will see an event in 100 different ways, due to a light signal between them, but the event itself isn't altered.
So, how then would one possibly explain an event that is independent from the observer, as being SR?
Examples: CERN's limited acceleration possibility of charges are intrinsic situations, not dependent from the observer; delayed decay of muons are intrinsic situations, not dependent from the observer. That is no SR! It is electromagnetism! Liénard and Wiecherd described "relativistic" electromagnetism in the late 19th century!
See explanations in:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re-examining-post-1905-physics
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
You wrote: "SRT cannot produce force fields, and doesn't describe force fields."
Exact. And its relativistic mechanics cannot be directly harmonized with electromagnetism due to the disconnect related to its not being able to take into account relativistic mass increase with velocity.
You wrote: "Hence, special relativity doesn't give any change to objects themselves."
Well, it does assert that the length of bodies will contract with increasing velocity, but does not account for the energy increase for such adiabatic contraction.
But since this length-contraction/time-dilation concept that artificially compensates for the truly existing mass increase simply doesn't exist, this makes SRT invalid from the get go, since it contradicts Walter Kaufman's physically obtained data, and also plain and simple Maxwell electromagnetism.
You wrote: " It is only about the perception at a distance: 100 different observers will see an event in 100 different ways, due to a light signal between them, but the event itself isn't altered."
This notion of "observers" having to do with understanding the gamma factor was introduced only because of the disconnect I mentioned above. There is no need for any of this in plain electromagnetism.
The energy simply physically exists and adiabatically increases according to the Coulomb law as a function of proximity between the charged particles that make up the mass of all macroscopic bodies. There is nothing more to it than this, except for the fact that half this adiabatically induced energy converts to increased mass.
You wrote: " CERN's limited acceleration possibility of charges are intrinsic situations, not dependent from the observer"
Exact, the acceleration of charges does not depend on any observers. That's what I always wrote. But I don't understand what you mean by "limited acceleration possibility".
There is no limitation to my knowledge. Electrons can be accelerated to as close to asymptotic c as available means can take it. I know of no physical limit.
You wrote: "delayed decay of muons are intrinsic situations, not dependent from the observer."
Yes. This is what I always said.
You wrote: "That is no SR! It is electromagnetism"
Of course! Again, this is what I always tried to explain.
You wrote "Liénard and Wiecherd described "relativistic" electromagnetism in the late 19th century! See explanations in:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re-examining-post-1905-physics"
I looked at some docs through this link, but what you refer to is too vague for the time I have at my disposal to read extensively without a specific and precise reference to what they said.
Did they identify the Gauss equation related adiabatic energy/mass induction between elementary charged massive particles?
If so, can you give me a more direct link to what they concluded and how they derived it?
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
You wrote : "relativistic mass increase with velocity".
Also you wrote: "The energy simply physically exists and adiabatically increases according to the Coulomb law as a function of proximity between the charged particles that make up the mass of all macroscopic bodies. There is nothing more to it than this, except for the fact that half this adiabatically induced energy converts to increased mass."
Energy exists, right. However, charges don't make up masses. What proves masses to increase at all?
In reality, Liénard and Wiechert have explored what later was further developed by Oleg Jefimenko and which proved that all the "relativistic" effects are coming from electromagnetism with retarded potentials. SRT cannot exist on its own.
Article Retarded electric and magnetic fields of a moving charge: Fe...
Energy/mass induction is inexistent and is not needed for anything, because the Liénard and Wiechert explain all the alleged "relativistic" experiments on charges.
By "limited acceleration possibility" I meant the speed limit of "c" at CERN, for charges. It is caused by the impossibility for the electromagnetic induction forces to reach the particles, when they are close to "c", because the charge's fields are totally deformed, and become a transversal pancake, like sonic bangs from jets.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
You wrote: "Energy exists, right. However, charges don't make up masses. What proves masses to increase at all?"
All elementary massive charged particles have an "electric charge" and a "mass".
The electron has a very precisely known electric charge and a very precisely known rest mass. This has been known and confirmed more than 100 years ago and all macroscopic masses can only be made of charged and massive elementary particles and their carrying energy.
What proved that the mass of an accelerating electron increases with velocity is Walter Kaufman's experiments, that were the first experiments ever that collected data about the effective transverse mass of electrons accelerated in the relativistic range, that Max Abraham analyzed and that Henri Poincare commented on, but that nobody else apparently understood, until recently Paul Marmet's discovery finally allowed relating his data to electromagnetism.
That's all there is to it.
I am not trying to convince you nor anybody else here. I know that this can't be done.
I am just repeating for the nth time what can be experimentally observed and analyzed from the Kaufman experiments and how Marmet's discovery allows to relate it to very simple electromagnetism, the consequence of which allows to completely harmonize classical/relativistic mechanics with electromagnetism and to also relate electromagnetism to Quantum Mechanics.
Every aspect of the whole coherence is described in my string of papers, at the disposal of the upcoming generation to read and understand, and move further on.
Since you are convinced that "energy/mass induction is inexistent", nothing that I could say on this issue can make any sense to you. Sorry to say.
You mention "I meant the speed limit of "c" at CERN".
The asymptotic speed limit at CERN is the same as anywhere else in the universe. It is c all over the universe in vacuum as derived by Maxwell. Charged massive particles such as the electron can be accelerated by electromagnetic induction as close to this asymptotic limit as the technical means will allow. As far as I could analyze, there is not even a technological limit.
The only limit to acceleration of an electron is that it will not ever reach c, because this is an "asymptotic limit", easy to understand from the derivation made in the paper I referred Mohamed to for the derivation of the gamma factor, due to the permanent impossibility for the induced momentum energy to ever become equal to the transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy making up the rest mass of the electron plus the also transversely oscillating induced mass increment that this momentum energy has to "propel", contrary to what happens for electromagnetic photons.
Free moving electromagnetic photons however, can only move at c as explained from the equations that can be established from de Broglie's hypothesis on the double-particle electromagnetic photon, because their momentum energy is always equal by structure to their transversely oscillating other half which is oscillating between electric state and magnetic state, in complete conformity with Marmet's discovery, Kaufman's experiments and in complete harmony with Maxwell's electromagnetism.
Anybody interested can find the detailed explanations with full and simple to understand mathematical development and connection with electromagnetism and classical/relativistic mechanics in my string of papers.
Best Regards
André
Dear Abdul,
Wolfgang Engelhardt understands the invalidity of SR/GR and the physical reality of mass increase with velocity for the same reason as me.
But he understands it from proper classical/relativistic mechanics understanding, while I understand it from rectified electromagnetic understanding that directly harmonizes with Wolfgang's view. The corresponding classical/relativistic mechanics and electromagnetic equations can even be directly converted into each other. I specifically mention this correspondence in Section 9 of my last paper (starting on page 1070), giving the references where this is established:
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf
This has nothing to do with any "belief". it has to do with understanding the relations that the data collected allows extrapolating.
You write: "Also for me, the term; m = mo (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ apparently makes no sense; on which generations of physicists toiled to work with; apparently with no concern! If mo (the rest mass) is 0, then the whole right-hand side becomes 0 and the whole relation becomes meaningless."
This is here I see a disconnect with physical reality: It is impossible in physical reality for an electron to have a mass less than 9.10938188E-31 kg. This simply does not exist.
So there is no way that the rest mass of an electron will fall to zero. Why should you consider such a possibility?
A mathematical relation is a non-verbal "descriptive tool". We set the limits where we know they really are. Even if my construction measuring tape suddenly winds back into its recess as I am measuring the length of a 2x4, this doesn't mean that the 2x4 suddenly becomes shorter than 8 feet.
LT and SR do not make any sense to start with either, so why analyze such worthless concepts to start with?
I never spent a minute wondering at the colour of angels' wings, for the simple reason that since they don't exist, they can't have wings either. No use in wondering what coloor their wings may be.
(Just exaggerating here of course, but only to emphasize how futile analyzing proven invalid concepts appears to me). I never waste a minute analyzing further or wondering about the whys of such obviously invalid concepts, once I have established their invalidity.
The same with an electron rest mass falling to zero, as far as I can see.
All these discussions among "believers" in SR, LT, GR are to me so much time wasted discussing about the colour of angels' wings, which is why I never discuss with them unless they try to take me on. Then I simply ask them to explain why no adiabatic increase of energy accompanies length contraction. Then they just disappear in the woodwork BECAUSE THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND ELECTROMAGNETISM despite the obvious fact that they think they do.
All their arguments are completely meaningless and disconnected from electromagnetism and real corrected classical/relativistic mechanics.
You wrote and asked: "Now, please give me a rational answer and NOT the ones based on “experimental results” from the accelerators or from mathematics; Engelhardt does the same. I had collected about 10 – 12 references of published papers (dating back to early accelerators) on the "mass increase" of various quantum particles and posted somewhere in RG. But I have no confidence in any of them, nor on the “discoveries” of Higgs boson; GW and centuries long “proofs” of the theories of relativity. But all seem to be contrived or even false claims. If these were true, only one or even none but only with one tangible historical/social/technological practice would have been good enough for me!"
I repeat your first question of this quote: "Now, please give me a rational answer and NOT the ones based on “experimental results” from the accelerators or from mathematics"
How is this ever possible? How is it possible to explain something without using words to explain it? And how is it possible to explain processes without using non-verbal equations to explain and measure these processes?
If you know, please tell me how dear Abdul. To my knowledge, the only means at our disposal to verbally describe anything is with words, and the only means to describe and measure processes are non-verbal mathematical concepts that have been elaborated for this very purpose from ancient times onwards.
To my knowledge, as I have mentioned already, people do not reconsider deeply held convictions once they are established. This simply never happened.
The "rational answer" that I can give from what I understand myself is grounded on premises different from yours, and unless you are prepared to even momentarily really start from a clean slate as you carefully read the paper I refer above, do the calculations of each equation to confirm validity if needed (I even give the values to be used that you can check anywhere in academia), take the time to understand every explanation along the way, go dig the references that I give and analyze them the same way, there is not a single chance that my "rational answer" will make any sense to you.
But if you do, chances are that you will progressively really see the coherence I describe, even if you end up disagreeing at the end.
What Eddington wrote: "Any experimental data are valid only when supported by a good theory" is only his own opinion and so much garbage as far as I am concerned.
He was quite a big talker in his time. He also said in 1928: " If someone tells you that your pet theory on the universe is contrary to Maxwell's equations, well, too bad for Maxwell’s equations."
I can tell you that he was wrong on this one also. He was just as ignorant as the current bunch of SR/GR believers about Maxwell's electromagnetism.
Any theory that disagrees with repeatably obtainable and stable experimental evidence is obviously wrong and must be reconsidered.
To your last question: " My question is why did they bother to do or say anything else at ..."
My answer is that what people do as they argue about proven invalid theories is just as meaningless as these theories.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
I am sorry to say that you misunderstood my comment. I know that your stance on the theories of relativity is similar to that of mine, My comments on SR, GR, QFT was not directed to you in particular; these are my standard complain about the mathematical idealism based theories of modern physics, since Einstein and I express my misgivings whenever opportunity arises.
My main question to you was on “mass increase” on the following two issues:
1) The equation m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½, I refereed to, was only for (what Robert calls) “lightspeed particles” – photons, gravitons, (also may be) neutrinos etc., whose rest mass is supposed to be zero. Everybody knows that electrons like other massive particle have finite mass, which never goes to zero. So I was surprised at your unnecessary emphasis on this point.
2. My main question to you was (copy from my comment above), “Let us take the case of “mass increase” as you suggest in your comment. Please give me a physical picture how this can happen. Mass increase means “additional mass”. Now, what is the nature of the “additional mass” of the proton moving at close to c? Is the “additional mass” of the same kind as the old mass or is it something new? And what happens to that “additional mass” when the proton speed comes down to its initial value before it was accelerated?”
I wanted an answer from you on this question: I know that you are satisfied that “mass increase” is an experimental fact (which I contest) and you gave a rational for this “mass increase” mathematically from the standpoint of electromagnetism (which Engelhardt did from the standpoint of SR). But whatever the case may be; how do you give a physical reasoning to the questions I posed in the highlighted paragraph above. Thanks.
Dear Abdul,
Ok. I will try to answer your questions.
Comment to your point 1) "The equation m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½, I refereed to, was only for (what Robert calls) “lightspeed particles” – photons, gravitons, (also may be) neutrinos etc., whose rest mass is supposed to be zero."
I will speak only of photons (electromagnetic photons) not of gravitons, neutrinos etc. that may be addressed later if you wish.
The idea that a hypothetical "rest mass" is supposed to be zero for electromagnetic photons is a conclusion of the invalid SR theory. So it is meaningless to me, including the notion that it may be a "rest" mass.
I don't know if this can be meaningful to you, but to me, from the electromagnetic perspective, "mass" means for a localized elementary electromagnetic quantum that it possesses "omnidirectional inertia" in space. This is synonym of "mass" to me. This means that this quantum will resist being interacted with whichever direction this interaction is applied from. This is equivalent to the classical definition of mass as meaning that a body will resist its state of motion to be changed which ever direction a force is being applied to it.
From establishing the electromagnetic equation of the de Broglie hypothesis, it turns out that an actual electromagnetic photon would have two distinct components.
One half being unidirectional momentum energy, propelling in space the other half, which can only be in "transverse" standing electromagnetic oscillation between an electric state and a magnetic state at the frequency determined by the amount of energy of this photon.
This "transversely" oscillating half quantum displays by structure "omnidirectional inertia" in space for reasons related to the space geometry required to define it, which means that it would be inert in space if the other half (the unidirectional momentum half quantum) was not propelling it in a specific direction.
The "transversely" oscillating half displays the characteristics of "mass".
Whenever such a photon gains or looses energy (blueshifting-redshifting-deflection of its trajectiory), the half-half equilibrium automatically appears to be maintained, which is why all photons can move only at c, which is the "equilibrium" velocity obtained when a half quantum of unidirectional momentum energy propels an "equal amount" of "transversely" oriented electromagnetic oscillating half quantum.
I don't know if this makes sense to you. This is a summary. The complete analysis is available.
To your item 2)
First, the energy making up the "rest mass" of an electron is electromagnetic energy "transversely oscillating" with no momentum attached. Left to its own, if this was possible, it would remain motionless in space. Its whole complement of energy displays "omnidirectional inertia", from the electromagnetic viewpoint.
It is also explained in one of my paper why all of its energy is stabilized "transversely".
Now, in physical reality, it is impossible that an electron would not be induced some momentum energy due to the Coulomb law from the simple fact that it is a "charged particle". From the moment it starts existing in nature, it can only be induced with an amount of adiabatic carrying energy that depends on its distance from other charged particles due to the Coulomb-law/Gauss-equation-for-the-electric-field/Maxwell-first-equation. This simply is how the Coulomb force is known to act with charged particles.
From what can be understood from Marmet's discovery that the increase in the magnetic field of an accelerating electron, this magnetic field "increment" can only be "transverse" to the direction of motion as defined in basic electromagnetism, so it also displays "omnidirectional inertia", and it can only be energy "in addition" to its invariant rest mass energy. This is also analyzed.
The faster the electron goes, the more its magnetic field increases at the same time and in the same proportion as its momentum energy increases, and the larger the transverse magnetic field increment component will be.
Close analysis shows that this transverse magnetic field can only be induced by the Coulomb force, just like the momentum energy.
Moreover, calculation shows that this "total carrying energy", made of the momentum energy plus the transverse magnetic energy can only have the same structure as that of the free moving electromagnetic photon described in item 1).
But in this case, the half quantum of momentum energy "propels" more than its own equivalent amount of transversely oscillating energy. It also carries in addition the total transversely oscillating energy making up the rest mass of the electron, which slows it down, which is why an electron can never reach the speed of light. The whole range of relativistic velocities can be calculated from this structure of the carrying energy, including deriving the Lorentz gamma factor from this structure.
It is the sum of the induced transverse magnetic field increment plus the invariant transversely oscillating energy of the rest mass of the electron, that constitutes the "increased mass" of the moving electron. Both are of the same nature: "Transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy".
It is not something new. it simply is something that never was properly analyzed in the community due to practically nobody in academia having studied and understood the basic and correct analysis that Maxwell made of the mutual transverse induction of the electric and magnetic aspects of electromagnetic energy.
When an accelerated electron slows down, both halves of its carrying energy reduce at the same time, because like for the electromagnetic photon, the half-half equilibrium seems to be automatically maintained, which is where the excess mass "disappears", that is, "fades away" at the same rate as its momentum energy diminishes.
Again, the complete analyses are available, but I don't know if this makes any sense to you.
I'm afraid that if this does not make a minimum of sense to you, I don't think that I can summarize it better. The full descriptions, justifications, references, and so on are in my papers for the up coming generation to assess.
True prior understanding of Maxwell's analysis is required for all of this to make sense.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
You wrote: "What proved that the mass of an accelerating electron increases with velocity is Walter Kaufman's experiments"
Of course not! Kaufman only measured a curve made by the charges depending from the speed!
That is well explained by using Liénard's and Wiechert's electromagnetism, which states that the faster charges go, the stronger their transversal field becomes, due to retardation of the fields, which then "regroup" differently. This augments the deflection, of course!
Article Retarded electric and magnetic fields of a moving charge: Fe...
The explanation ad hoc, by involving mass increase and/or special relativity (which cannot change intrinsic properties), is biased.
You wrote: "It is c all over the universe in vacuum as derived by Maxwell."
Yes, *locally*, as waves. And waves can only exist by the grace of a medium.
Preprint Which Physical Process Regulates the Constant Speed of Light?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
You wrote: "Kaufman only measured a curve made by the charges depending from the speed!"
Yes. Absolutely.
You wrote: "That is well explained by using Liénard's and Wiechert's electromagnetism, which states that the faster charges go, the stronger their transversal field becomes,"
Yes. Absolutely, but not due to any "retarded fields". Due to the fact that the transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy measured by these fields increments display "omnidirectional inertia", that is "mass" because their electromagnetic energy oscillates "transversely" in local standing mode with respect to the direction of motion. Their mass being increased cause the angle of deflection to change as the velocity increases in a special manner.
The longitudinal inertia becomes different from the transverse inertia due to the fact that only half of the carrying energy displays transverse inertia. The longitudinally oriented momentum half of the carrying energy is impervious to any transverse interaction.
You wrote: "And waves can only exist by the grace of a medium."
I could not have said it better. The thing is that since the de Broglie photon is self-propelling at this self-maintaining equilibrium velocity, it doesn't need any underlying medium to move at c anywhere in vacuum, anywhere in the universe. Not only locally.
This corresponds to a definition of a transverse wave with no need for a longitudinal component, the latter being the only current definition of transverse wave. Inadequate to describe real energy electromagnetic transverse standing oscillation, even when in motion as discrete quanta.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
You wrote : "not due to any "retarded fields".
That is wrong. The basics of Lienard's and Wiechert's analysis is precisely the retardation of the field due to the charges' velocity.
And it proves all experiments with fast charges, including Kaufman's.
You should deepen electromagnetism.
You wrote "Due to the fact that these fields increments display "omnidirectional inertia", that is "mass"."
That is your assumption, without any proof whatsoever, and needless since Lienard and Wiechert's proved it already for charges, based upon Maxwell's equations, and without such assumptions.
A "self-propelling Broglie photon" is a non-existent artifact.
Speed "c anywhere in vacuum" without a medium is nonsense since then you cannot define a physical process that would adapt the speed of light for a planet X in galaxy Y, that approaches us with v, while "c" would be measured as well on X as on the Earth.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no problem with this.
Preponderance of the evidence presented by Maxwell, Kaufman, de Broglie and Marmet confirm that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy displays omnidirectional inertia.
That's all there is to it. This allows reconciling classical/relativistic mechanics with electromagnetic mechanics and to finally directly connect quantum mechanics with electromagnetism. What more could you wish for?
You wrote: "You wrote "Due to the fact that these fields increments display "omnidirectional inertia", that is "mass"."
That is your assumption,"
No. This is not my "assumption". This is my "conclusion". Which is quite different.
Right or wrong, and irrespective of any opinion, this is what the upcoming generation will become acquainted with.
I made quite certain that this one will not be stopped.
The more this is argued against, the more people will become curious and the more people will look deeper into it, trying to find cracks in the reasoning.
They won't find any and at some point, some will light up to the complete coherence and will move on.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
This is not a matter of opinions, it is a matter of scientific proof. Since you agreed with "Kaufman only measured a curve made by the charges depending from the speed!", there is no variable mass involved, only a deformation of the electric field about the charges, as confirmed by electromagnetism. Don't invent processes that don't exist and that are not directly proven by experiment. Even the relativists agree now that mass increase doesn't exist.
Liénard and Wiechert strictly used Maxwell's equations and found the deformations of electric fields around fast moving charges, as experimentally found by Kaufman.
If you are denying that, spites that you agreed with Maxwell's equations, you are denying a daily well-proven theory, that is inside every computer and phone.
So, I would rather revise your theory than trying to re-write the whole theory of electromagnetism.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
You simply do not understand what it means for electromagnetic energy to be oscillating "transversely" in standing mode with respect to the direction of motion.
I cannot help you in this regard.
Nothing I could say related to this aspect of electromagnetism can make any sense to you. Sorry to say.
Obviously, Liénard and Wiechert did not understand it either.
You wrote: " Even the relativists agree now that mass increase doesn't exist."
If a bunch is not a reference for me, it is this bunch. I found that none of them has the faintest idea of the meaning of Maxwell's first equation.
I am not re-writing the whole theory of electromagnetism, quite the contrary. I simply agree with the interpretation of Maxwell, Kaufman, Abraham, Poincaré, de Broglie and Marmet, and I suggest that the whole of academia starts studying it also, otherwise, they will be unprepared when their students start asking them about this during their lectures some time in the furure.
The coherence is out and there is no rolling it back.
As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your views on the question of “mass increase:; I now probably have some better understanding of your perspective; even without going through the references you cited. But unfortunately, to me this seems to be a forced and obscure way to look at the problem. I respect your views, but with my materialist dialectical perspective, I tend to agree with Thierry and many others that “mass” like “charge”, “spin”etc., are intrinsic and invariant properties of quantum particles and remain so under any circumstances as long as the particle exists as an independent entity.
The concept that massive matter can be progressively divided into some ultimate tangible and discrete entities came with the idea of atom of Leucippus and Democritus. Chemistry thrived on this concept in an empirical way, that was summarized in a Periodic Table even before electrons and electronic structure of atoms were known; but that now gives a rationale for all chemical knowledge. The fact that magnetic bodies and electric charge can have a somewhat esoteric and continuous field and later Maxwell’s idea that light is in fact electromagnetic waves (like sound) propagating through an equally esoteric media (aether), developed as parallel discipline. But Einstein’s concept of (light) photon to explain photoelectric effect unified discrete matter (mass) particles and the photons of the electromagnetic field in favour of discrete matter particle as the basis of objective reality bringing it in harmony with of the “atom” concept of the early Greeks and moreover extended this concept to virtual particles of modern quantum electrodynamics (QED).
For photo-electric and other quantum phenomena to be true, the photon must have momentum (mc) and a non-zero mass (however infinitesimal) for mc to be meaningful. A light pulse can be made to slow down and even crawl through a Bose-Einstein condensate showing that its mass (dimension) does not come to a vanishing point (or zero). A neutrino definitely has non-zero mass and velocity at least comparable to c. So it became obvious that for quantum particles like photons, an esoteric medium (aether) is not necessary for their propagation. But in my view the question raised in this context by Robert Martineau is significant in the sense why, in spite of having mass; photons, neutrinos etc., do not need any accelerations (or cannot be accelerated) but start with their characteristic velocity from the get-go of their creation, while other massive particles even the uncharged ones like neutrons cannot (even in vacuum?).
This picture was complicated by the turn of the twentieth century by the concept of (matter-independent) “continuous field (actually a reincarnation of esoteric aether), such as “spacetime”, “Higgs”, “quantum” etc., fields; as the basis of objective reality. This trend in modern official theoretical physics is a complete reversal and the negation of the materialist concept based on discrete matter (massive) particles as the basis of objective reality, by replacing it with an esoteric (matter-less) “field” . This is clear from the following quote from Einstein, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
For official physics, “Matter is a Myth”. What we call matter particles are in fact wavelets or droplets of the underlying “field”. This idea unscrupulously compares itself with the classical electromagnetic field of Maxwell, which in essence is matter particle (photons) based. As I suggested above and elsewhere, this trend came as reactionary, regressive and unscientific efforts to save the venerated rationalist notions of certainty, continuity, determinism, causality etc. in natural science; which have now become threatened with the recognition of the quantum phenomena and QED.
So, André, as I understand it; your idea of “mass” and its possible “increase”seems to have been influenced (probably unwittingly) by the Einsteinian “continuous field” concept of objective reality, where in this view a so-called “particle” in fact is some entrapped “field” that can “increase” with speed to give it LT and relativistic effects. This concept is impervious and oblivious to the quantum phenomena and the discrete particles as the basis of objective reality, - a materialist perspective that was once the great merit of natural science.
It therefore follows that you, like in Einsteinian physics must adhere to conservation laws of thermodynamics, “ex nihilo nihil fit” of theology, a one-time and deterministic Big Bang creation of the universe (and everything else in it, "perfect in itself") in the finite past etc., and the whole view of modern official cosmology.
I have tried to develop (in my various works) a perspective (a fusion of Hegel’s dialectics and QED) with discrete matter (massive) particles and motion as the primary attributes of objective reality. This view is the completely opposite to the above picture of official physics. The dialectical perspective together with QED abolishes any notion of one-time Big Bang creation; the permanence of what exist or any idea of a creator. This view asserts that the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing; "everything is eternally coming into being and passing out of existence" mediated by chance and necessity and by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum – the source and sink of quantum matter particles and hence everything else of the universe.
Dear Abdul,
Difficult for me to comment the multitude of issues you raise, due to too great intricacy of the comments I would have to make, considering that all of this naturally falls into clear perspective once the complete coherence is understood.
One point strikes me though. You speak of neutrons as being "particles".
We know since the first experiments carried out at SLAC in 1966-1968 that the neutron and the proton are not particles, but "systems of elementary electromagnetic particles", just like the solar system is not a celestial body, but a system of celestial body.
We know with certainty that both are systems of triads of elementary charged massive particles, point-like behaving just like the electron, and that it is these elementary charged subcomponents that are subject to the Coulomb law, not the proton or neutron as such.
My conclusions about mass was in no way "influenced" by any concept of "fields", Einsteinian or otherwise.
My conclusions about mass are related not to the idea of "fields", but to the idea of the "physically existing energy" that the fields are meant to mathematically represent.
Remember the analogy with the construction measuring tape. "Fields" are only a measuring tool. The real thing is "the electromagnetic energy" that physically exists and that we "measure" with the fields concept, that was conceived of by Gauss.
As I wrote, there is no real possibility for you to make sense of my "coherent answer", because it is grounded on premises that you do not recognize.
At least, my summary description seems to make some sort of sense to you.
I am positive however that it will make sense for the coming generation students who have not yet decided for good beforehand what foundation they will accept as valid.
To them, this one is likely to look as interesting as any other model, particularly since it allows completely harmonizing classical/relativistic mechanics with electromagnetic mechanics, and seems to go a long way reconciling QM with electromagnetism, which is something that no other model seems to currently offer.
Best Regards
André
Dear Mohamed,
You write " Because even high school students know perfectly that the Lorentz force law is a generalisation of the Coulomb's force law."
I then recommend that the textbooks they are using be revised. Because the Coulomb interaction involves no B field, so the Lorentz force equation cannot be a generalization of a concept that involves no B field.
The proper way to logically recuperate the Coulomb equation is to simply multiply the Gauss equation for the E field by a second charge, not to arbitrarily chop half the Lorentz force equation off.
It was Gauss who generalized the Coulomb force law from the original Coulomb force equation, by removing one of the charges, thus defining the E field, not Lorentz.
Best Regards
André
Dear Abdul,
You wrote: "It therefore follows that you, like in Einsteinian physics must adhere to conservation laws of thermodynamics, “ex nihilo nihil fit” of theology, a one-time and deterministic Big Bang creation of the universe (and everything else in it, "perfect in itself") in the finite past etc., and the whole view of modern official cosmology."
You definitely have not read any of my papers if you think that I adhere to the conservation laws of thermodynamics.
I specifically challenge the principle of energy conservation in many of my papers, for the simple reason that energy is adiabatically induce in charged particles by the Coulomb interaction, which directly contradicts the conservation principle, the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian as currently formulated.
As for the Big Bang, it is a conclusion of GR disconnected from physical reality. I have a quite different view that was the object of a separate paper.
Best Regards
André
Dear Abdul,
Thank you again for mentioning my name in relation to the photon in your response to Andre. I would like to clarify the concept of the speed of the photon. It is rather tricky. In the law of Photodynamics (in my paper), which is the bedrock of my understanding, the photon can travel at any speed from zero to C. for very short periods of time. It is incorrect to say that the photon has a zero rest mass and can only travel at the speed of light. If it is born with a speed less than C, it quickly and forcefully, accelerates itself (no external force needed) to the speed of light in a very short time, and then maintains that speed. It can, of course, be caused to travel at a speed less than the speed of light, but only if a tremendous force is applied against it. This is what happens when a photon hits a brick wall. This is explained in my paper on Photodynamics, in the section on self-acceleration. Because of the mathematical form (plus versus minus signs in the quadratic forms) of the Einstein energy-momentum theorem, versus that of the Photodynamic energy-momentum theorem, self-acceleration does not occur for atomic particles (type 2 particles), only for type 1 particles, those that travel at the speed of light. It is acceleration to the speed of light and maintenance of that speed that explains the CMB photon cooling problem, which can't be explained otherwise.
Self-acceleration is of course a consequence of the fact that the relativistic masses of type 1 particles goes like 1/gamma, while the relativistic mass of type 2 particles (atomic particles) goes like gamma. Again, these differences in the relativistic masses of the two types of particles comes from the plus versus minus signs in the energy-momentum theorems.
Appreciate your interest,
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
You wrote: "If it [a photon] is born with a speed less than C, it quickly and forcefully, accelerates itself (no external force needed) to the speed of light in a very short time, and then maintains that speed."
I must that this is an aspect of your analysis that I fully agree with. It is logically and physically impossible for a quantum of energy to instantly jump from zero velocity to c.
For example, when a 13.6 eV bremmsstrahlung electromagnetic photon is emitted when an electron is captured in least action electromagnetic equilibrium in the ground state orbital of a hydrogen atom, there simply is no possibility for it not to start its travel from the sudden dead stop zero velocity that forces it to evacuate.
Best Regards
André
Dear Robert,
You wrote: "... the photon can travel at any speed from zero to C..."
Which zero? By which magical force?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Robert and Abdul,
Actually, in the trispatial geometry, the energy that converts to a Bremmsstrahlung electromagnetic photon when an electron is captured in any orbital of an atom starts to move at the velocity that the electron had at the very moment of capture. Its equation is the following as representable with classical mechanics notation:
E= ΔK + Δmc2.
Where ΔK is its momentum energy and Δmc2 is the transversely oscillating energy of its mass. As soon as it reaches velocity c, both ΔK and Δmc2 will remain permanently equal until captured somewhere else. They can have any value, but they will always remain equal to each other by structure as the photon is in motion.
As it starts moving, ΔK will be presumably smaller than Δmc2 to account for the initial velocity, but in a fraction of a second, equilibrium will be restored by structure and both will become equal, and the velocity increases in relation, to reach c when both half-quanta become equal.
There are many ways to represent the energy of a photon in the trispatial geometry:
E= hν = ΔK + Δmc2 and many others. Some would allow calculating its velocity at any moment of its emission when the actual mechanics of emission is actually understood.
This is explained in the paper I last referred Abdul to:
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf
Best Regards
André
Dear Robert,
I very much welcome your idea that all tangible material particles (photons and other quantum particles included) must have non-zero mass and “motion”. This is a primary perquisite for my materialist dialectical view of the world, but for me unlike many others of official physics, this mass in invariable. But I have problem with your “self-acceleration” of as you say,“lightspeed particles”; because it sounds like perpetual motion and creation of mass/energy at non-quantum level; which is never experienced; although I assert that it is quite possible at quantum level. Of course, I have no idea or explanation as to how a photon or a neutrino can get an instant velocity c. I could suggest a remote possibility through the mediation of virtual particles, as I tried to explain wave/particle duality of quantum particles in my article available at RG: Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...
I will try to explain and follow you through in my very simple exposition of your ideas in my own very naïve way, as I understand it (if I understand it correctly at all!). But before that I must point out that the use of algebraic relation in physics; specially the ones used in SR/LT combination as you have used in your article; involve fallacies of multiplication or division by zero, a practice, which is not apparent when using algebraic expressions. For example (as I said above) SR expression m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½, , where m0 is assumed to be zero is meaningless, or using the term v+c or v-c, which means adding or subtracting a finite small quantity to/from an absolute and very large quantity. Where does the absoluteness of c stand in such expression? Or such mathematical tricks as renormalization in QED, where you subtract one infinity from another infinity to get a finite number! Is this a meaningful exercise? Even if you made a 50% error in your calculation you would not know it! This is an endemic problem in modern physics, because it involve the use of fallacious theories and measuring either very large quantities like c or very small quantities, like the claim to have measured (in the range of 10^-25 or so cm. distance with LIGO; or finding a time difference in atomic clock after ten (or so decimal places) and so on; or all dubious kinds of “calibration” or 5 sigma measurements etc.
I am saying all these because profound claims and inferences are being made in modern physics based on these fallacies theories and dubious or even false experimental data; which was very rare in the practice of classical physics. Since you are using the terms related to the SR, I would like to remind you that you have to be aware of the mathematical fallacies particularly in the theories of relativity, because Einstein indiscriminately used and mixed “thought experiments” vs. real experiments, ideal world vs. real world etc, at sweet will and whenever it was convenient for him mathematically. This has given rise to centuries long confusion, paradoxes, controversies etc., among the modern physicists. I would urge you watch the video in the following link that shows what kind of mathematical fallacies are involved in SR, a case close to your problem. The gentleman speaking in this video is painfully slow and repetitive, but if you bear it, you will see the problems associated with SR and that he has a valid point to make.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrun8KUyYm4
Sorry, for this long diatribe against Einsteinian physics. But I felt like doing it to emphasize the risk involved in using expressions from SR or GR. As you have used the terms from SR and the gamma terms, I would request you to consider the following points before you make the definitive conclusions in this work. I am not very good in mathematics For this discussion, I would absurdly simplify the problem you discussed and will base my discussion only involving the mass terms m and mo assuming these to be related to the energy, momentum, etc., terms as usual As I understand it, you use the term m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ for normal particles that cannot attain velocity c and the expression m = m0/(1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ for “lightspeed particles”; and assume that m0 is never equal to zero.
Now, for the first expression (the standard case), it is obvious that as v increases the denominator decreases and hence m0 and m both increase in proportion; requiring higher energy to accelerate the particle. In the second case, both m and m0 becomes zero (m= m0 = 0), when v = c; while m becomes equal to m0, (m = mo) when v = 0. Do you want to mean that in the case of “lightspeed particles” mo and hence m attains an untenable maximum value when u = 0 and mo must spontaneously lower its mass by the equivalent energy to accelerate itself towards velocity c and must perpetually do so as soon as u becomes less than c! It would mean (according to you) that a lightspeed particle can never slow down, because there is constant push by the intrinsic tendency for the particle to lose its mass, producing kinetic energy. If this is the rational for “self-acceleration” you use, then I think that this conclusion is too far fetched and seems to be artificially construed.
I would request you to consider the following points:
1. Why should a “lightspeed particle” spontaneously convert its own mass to maintain its highest speed and by what mechanism?
2. What happens to the particle when it loses kinetic energy by other means, say collision with other particles and how can the particle regain its mass in that case?
3. The relation m = m0/(1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ seems to be an arbitrary choice, or as a first principle without any reasoning and in retrospect seems to be chosen to make a case for “self- acceleration” or some peculiar phenomena in SR
4. Formulation of SR terms containing gamma term involves mathematical fallacies as the above video would show and using those terms in your case would also probably import those fallacies!
Most of the other published works on related topic also contain fallacies, but they make their conclusion to sing the glory of Einstein and his theories of relativity. I can only speculate the reason why you could not get your paper published. In your case you have done the opposite! No matter how much fallacy you commit; if you can make (even if in a dubious way) it to ultimately conform to the theories of relativity, any journal would be glad to publish it! Regards, Abdul
Dear André,
You wrote: "Preponderance of the evidence presented by Maxwell, Kaufman, de Broglie and Marmet confirm that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy displays omnidirectional inertia."
Can you provide a reference of Maxwell that states that, please?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
You will have to dig up Maxwell's own texts and study them until what he explains becomes clear to you.
Briefly summarized, what he discovered is that both electric and magnetic aspects of energy are oriented perpendicularly to each other and mutually induce each other as they oscillate transversely to the direction of motion, which is perpendicular to both electric and magnetic aspects.
This is the triply orthogonal geometry that underlies all electromagnetic processes.
The mutual induction of both aspects is synthesized by the Poynting vector, and the triply orthogonal relation is synthesized by the relation E/B=v for moving elementary charges, and E/B=c for electromagnetic photons.
If this is meaningless to you, I have no other way to describe it.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
What I asked you is the proof that Maxwell was saying that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy would display omnidirectional inertia, as you stated it.
Instead, you present the case as if I would need an elementary course about the propagation of Maxwell's basic electromagnetic waves, which -by the way- you imagine to be corpuscular photons.
You mentioned Maxwell, so, I would like to know his basis on which you can imagine that for charges, the mass is allegedly velocity-dependent and moreover anisotropic depending from the velocity.
Maybe can you understand that it will be difficult for me to dig up Maxwell's own texts and study them until what you imagine he explains becomes clear to me.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
I never wrote that Maxwell was saying that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy would display omnidirectional inertia.
I specifically wrote "Preponderance of the evidence presented by Maxwell, Kaufman, de Broglie and Marmet confirm that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy displays omnidirectional inertia."
You quoted it yourself. Just read it back.
You then asked me what Maxwell had to do with this, and I told you what he understood, which is only part of "the evidence" I mentioned. The complete coherence is clearly explained with full mathematical support in my string of freely available published papers and the monograph published at Scholar's Press, aux Editions Universitaires Européennes and at the Editorial Académica Española.
As for the rest of "the evidence" that I mentioned, you told me repeatedly that you don't even believe that it exists. So there is no way that I can prove anything to you grounded on evidence that you are convinced does not exist.
What I describe in my string of papers can be meaningful only for people who are not convinced from the get go that it does not exist.
Sorry to say, but there is no way that what I explain can mean anything to you. The "proofs", as you say, become obvious as understanding of the general coherence I propose sets in, and will be meaningful only to people who minimally think that a possibility exists that the evidence itself might exist.
I don't understand why you seem so irritated by my views on physical reality.
It is just one opinion among hundreds of others that are aired on RG. I am not irritated by your views, even if they are different from mine. I think that all ideas deserve to be aired. In fact this was the very aim that Walter pursued by setting up the GSJournal, which is why we publish all ideas. Just as it was the original purpose of the setting up of the Royal Society and was also the philosophy at the root of the setting up of the string of physics congresses that were held at St Petersburg State U every 2 years starting in 1998, which is where I met Walter at Congress-2000, and first proposed the trispatial geometry.
I read and comment on what I am interested in and ignore what I am not interested in. I don't really care if people do not like my material. It is available for whoever thinks it is interesting. All others can simply read other stuff that they like more.
Best Regards
André
Dear André, one can either believe that this forum is meant as a promotion tool for one's own material and ignore other opinions, or one can use this forum for what it is meant for, which is scientific progress through scientific debate.
I don't think it is abnormal in the latter case that I asked for more information from you when you write "Preponderance of the evidence presented by Maxwell [...] confirm that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy displays omnidirectional inertia."
If Maxwell didn't actually said that, what did he say in order to allow you this opinion?
You also wrote that Maxwell's theory speaks of "the relation E/B=v for moving elementary charges".
Where can you find such a thing?
On what basis do you allow the opinion that energy of fast charges is transformed into inertial mass?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
You wrote "one can either believe that this forum is meant as a promotion tool for one's own material and ignore other opinions, or one can use this forum for what it is meant for, which is scientific progress through scientific debate."
From my perspective, RG simply is a forum where all ideas can be freely aired and exchanged on all types of issues, to be made available for whoever thinks they might be interesting. I am here specifically to collect every bit of complementary info that might have escaped me.
You wrote: "I don't think it is abnormal in the latter case that I asked for more information from you when you write "Preponderance of the evidence presented by Maxwell [...] confirm that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy displays omnidirectional inertia."
No, it is not abnormal to ask. What I find abnormal is that my attempts at answering you in context of what I understand seems to irritate you.
You wrote: "If Maxwell didn't actually said that, what did he say in order to allow you this opinion?"
I told you, but then you answered that I present "the case as if I would need an elementary course about the propagation of Maxwell's basic electromagnetic waves, which -by the way- you imagine to be corpuscular photons."
No. I just answered your question explaining the part of the coherence I see that Maxwell contributed.
You wrote: "You also wrote that Maxwell's theory speaks of "the relation E/B=v for moving elementary charges"
No. I did not say that Maxwell's theory speaks of E/B=v for moving elementary charges.
I specifically wrote: " The mutual induction of both aspects is synthesized by the Poynting vector, and the triply orthogonal relation is synthesized by the relation E/B=v for moving elementary charges, and E/B=c for electromagnetic photons. "
It was me saying that, not Maxwell. Just read back.
E/B=v for moving elementary charges emerges from the Lorentz force equation for motion in straight line. qE=qvB.
But since you give no credit to what I write on these issues, I suggest you look for explanations about this in any reference text that describes how the Lorentz force equation can be used to control velocity and trajectory of electrons when both forces are equal.
You wrote: " On what basis do you allow the opinion that energy of fast charges is transformed into inertial mass? "
No. I never said that it is "transformed" into inertial mass. What I concluded is that transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy IS what we perceive as "mass", because it was experimentally proven to display "omnidirectional inertia".
Omnidirectional inertia in space means that a transversely oscillating energy quantum will resist being interacted with whichever direction the interaction is applied from.
It is the clearest definition of "omnidirectional inertia" that I could come up with, which is the equivalent of the classical definition of "mass", which is, as mentioned by Poincare, that mass will resist to any change of its state of motion, whichever direction a force is applied to it.
Mass is energy that transversely cyclically oscillates between a state that displays "electric behavior" and a state that displays "magnetic behavior".
That's what the preponderance of the evidence that I observe coalesces into revealing. This is my conclusion.
It is on a basis that you are apparently not interested in reading about because it is grounded on concepts that you repeatedly said that you believe do not exist.
Best Regards
André
Dear Abdul,
Thank you again for your interest and perceptive questions and comments. I also never thought that photons could instantaneously go to the speed C. That is why I was so pleased to see in Photodynamics that photons can go at any speed from zero to the speed of light, although they accelerate themselves to the speed of light very quickly and then maintain that speed. To properly understand self-propulsion we must first go to the derivation of the energy momentum theorems for both Einstein and lightspeed particles. By the way, I invented "lightspeed particles" so that I could reduce word count over use of "particles that travel at the speed of light" in my many efforts to publish.
You see in equations (10) and (11) in Photodynamics that the derivations of the theorems is based on the definition of the Lorentz factor gamma. By the way, I have never seen the derivation of the Einstein energy momentum theorem this way. It is this type of derivation which suggested equation (11) and subsequently Photodynamics. Also, since the Lorentz factor is true for any velocity u, it makes the energy momentum theorems relativistic invariants. Notice that in both equations there is a constant (the invariant), a term proportional to u^2 which provides momentum squared, and a term involving gamma square for the energy. Multiplying each by e(0)^2 yields the energy momentum theorems of eq (1) and eq (12).. Notice that since we are talking about quadratic forms there are only two ways equations (10) and (11) can come out. This is the ultimate reason why the Universe has only two types of particles, either the type 1 lightspeed particles, or the type 2, Einstein, atomic particles. Looking at the subsequent terms in the e-m theorems then yields the expressions for energy and momentum for each e-m theorem. Notice that I did not feed in these expressions. They come out of the energy and the momentum terms in the e-m theorems. Also notice that this yields two E = mc^2 expressions: E(2) = m(2)C^2 and E(1) = m(1) C^2 where m(2) = m(0)gamma for atomic particles and m(1) = m(0)/gamma for lightspeed particles. Because gamma goes to infinity the atomic particles can't go at the speed of light, and lightspeed particles can. Notice also that m(0) is the rest mass and is taken to be a constant. This works well for atomic particle and for lightspeed particles free of external forces.
Now for self propulsion. Notice that in eq (12) there is a plus sign and in eq (1) there is a minus sign before the momentum terms. This difference in sign has tremendous consequences. In equation (1) the energies associated with E and cP can be very large since these energies cancel out to maintain the invariant. There is nothing preventing E and cP from becoming very large. In eq (12) for lightspeed particles, both e and cp are limited in size because of the plus sign. As one increases the other decreases, and visa versa. This is reflected in eqs (13). Notice in eq (12) that if e decreases by a certain amount then cp must increase by the same amount. In particular, if e decreases to zero, then cp must become e(0) which says that u in p must go to c. That is, as the energy e decrease it forces the particle to increases it speed until e = 0 and u = c. Because of the principle of minimization of energy, (there are minimization principles all over physics -Maupertuis least action, derivation of Lagrangians, etc), the energy e is driven to zero which drives the speed to c. I am not an expert on thermodynamics but believe the principle of minimization of energy comes from entropy. Notice, as stated in the paper, that because of the minus sign in the e-m theorem there is no self propulsion of atomic particles.
Notice that self propulsion needs no energy from the outside. Energy is conserved in the process. What happens is that the "internal energy" e is converted into energy of motion cp until all of e has been consumed and converted to cp at which time cp is e(0) = m(0)c^2, that is u = c. That is why the photon cannot go faster than c. It has run out of energy.
Please pay particular attention to the fact that in the expressions for the relativistic mass m, m(0) is a constant and m varies with speed u because gamma does also. m(2) goes to infinity, and m(1) goes to zero, making e zero at u = c.
Thank you for continuing to read the paper and for asking good questions. I wish more readers would follow your example. I think they would enjoy it.
Bob Martineau
Dear André,
Here we get it! "E/B=v ... was me saying that, not Maxwell." and "E/B=v for moving elementary charges emerges from the Lorentz force equation."
No, because in that case we get not only a triviality, making F zero and the charge q indefinite, moreover, it would mean that the field E of the moving charge and the term v x B would be of opposite sign.
However, by the definition itself of the magnetic field of a moving charge, it should give a right-handed corkscrew magnetic field with the line of motion, which on the contrary would *amplify* the resulting force instead of compensating it.
Hence, if it is supposed that the field E and B are taking origin in one same moving charge, we get a contradiction against Maxwell.
It is indeed interesting to investigate what gives the impression of mass, if we start from elementary charges. That's true. However, I would rather link that to Louis de Broglie's idea of light in a closed orbit, or "self-trapped" standing waves. In that sense, since light transports energy and momentum as a wave, it also carries "mass" at a speed "c". So, light that stays in a confined space will make circle that mass, so that it becomes perceivable locally.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
Regarding the point of "E/B=v for moving elementary charges emerges from the Lorentz force equation."
I "said" it to you since you were wondering where this came from, but I am not talking of a personal opinion here. I can only recommend that you verify in textbooks. This is established and confirmed electromagnetic physics. This is what they control charged particles beams velocity in high energy accelerators with. The relative densities of the E and B fields is also what is used to control trajectories of electrons in cathode ray tubes, etc. So I will not argue about theory on this confirmed electromagnetic process.
Easy to confirm anyway, since calculating the E and B fields of a moving electron allows obtaining the real relativistic velocities for motion in straight line. You could do it yourself on a hand held calculator.
You wrote: "However, I would rather link that to Louis de Broglie's idea of light in a closed orbit, or "self-trapped" standing waves"
Yes. Absolutely. That's precisely what I have been talking about all along, and what I have been exploring for the past 20 years!
This is precisely what I describe in the paper on de Broglie's hypothesis, but it can be understood only in the context of an expanded space geometry, as de Broglie himself suspected:
I found that this expanded space geometry is obtained simply by sort of "exploding" each of the 3 mutually orthogonal vectors of the Maxwell theory into full blown 3D vectorial spaces. Within this expanded space geometry, localized photons can be represented as you say as a transverse standing waves self-propelled by non-oscillating momentum energy.
If interested, this paper was found to be Maxwell equations compliant by the peer-reviewers and published in 2016:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
It is totally incorrect that E/B=v has anything to do with accelerators of charges, or whathever with moving charges. Please give a link that would confirm such a thing.
To me, writing "...whose varying velocity is given in classical electrodynamics from the Lorentz equation, by this well known relation E/B=v ", peer reviewed or not, is simply fraud until the opposite has been proven.
Also, since you wrote "as de Broglie himself suspected:" you here suggest again, this time with de Broglie, that he would have suggested an "expanded space geometry", by "exploding" each of the 3 mutually orthogonal vectors of the Maxwell theory into full blown 3D vectorial spaces.
However, since the dimensions of charge and magnetism are already totally independent from each-other and from the dimensions of mass, distance and time, it is unnecessary to do so. These dimensions can simply be described spacially, as was done since the 19th century.
So, I would like to know your de Broglie sources.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
Sorry to say, but since you give no credit to what I say, I recommend again that you read the references I gave you: Standard reference books on electromagnetism NOT WRITTEN BY ME.
Nobody has any obligation to "prove" anything to you. Do your own research.
As for direct references to what de Broglie said, they are given in full details with quotes and pages from the references written by de Broglie himself in the paper I gave you a reference to.
You just need to click on the link and you will find them, just like anybody minimally interested. If you do, you will find the references to the books written by de Broglie, read the quotes in his books and then we can continue this discussion.
Unfortunately, since you do not believe anything I answer you and that what I say is a fraud. I am positive that you will not verify. Quite unfortunate.
Very difficult, if not impossible, to hold a conversation when one person systematically denies the very possibility that what the other refers to even exists, and that it is fraud.
Best Regards
André
Dear Mohamed,
I see that you are deliberately misquoting me. I wrote " The mutual induction of both aspects is synthesized by the Poynting vector, and the triply orthogonal relation is synthesized by the relation E/B=v for moving elementary charges, and E/B=c for electromagnetic photons."
Well. We are not in middle school, and you are in no position to punish me, and more importantly, I am not looking for your approval.
Any intelligent physics savvy reader understands what I mean. Vectors are vectors, and I am not alone letting the absolute signs being assumed to simplify notation. Quite a few formal references also do. I note vectors as I wish and you will have to get used to it if you want to understand what I explain.
You can play the vierge offensée all you want about misplaced commas and absolute signs, but this will not make you understand any better what I explain.
Simply misquoting me reveals how difficult it is for you to understand logical argumentation.
Best Regards
André
Dear Robert,
Thanks for the additional exposition of your views. As I said before, your proposition that all types of particles (quantum or not) must have mass and motion, strictly conforms to materialist dialectical perspective, but mass like some other properties of elementary particles remains invariant.
As soon as you admit variable mass; you exit materialism and physics and instead, enter the world of metaphysics and fantasy that Einstein created bmy expressing “mass” by the relation m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ ,which as I said is meaningless (has no rational basis) and gives you all the power for endless fantasy and abstractions. Even if you are anti-relativists like André or Engelhardt (as I said in my comment to André above) you unwittingly fall into the trap of Einsteinian metaphysics (whether you want it or not!) if you allow variable mass. I said the same thing to Chip Arp, who like other anti-Big Bang astrophysicists like Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar subscribed to “variable mass” theory, to explain the high redshifts of nearby Quasars.
As I said in my long comment to you above (and following your mathematical formulations), your idea of “self-propulsion” or “self-acceleration” does not make any sense to me; even though I understand your valid mathematical (courtesy of Einstein) explanation. But tangible mass spontaneously and reversively converting to one or the other form as is required by your “self-propulsion” have no physical basis, at least not known so far. The only way mass can be converted to energy (kinetic or not) as in nuclear reactions; or energy into mass, as in pair production; must involve irreversible change of the mass/energy units involved. So your idea that the mass of “lightspeed particles" can act like a battery in a car (a crude example) providing and absorbing (electrical) energy when necessary, like in a running car; seems unrealistic.
André Michaud
Dear André,
Sorry for the delay in my response. But unfortunately, your somewhat strained and laboured explanation of how a particle can have/gain extra mass at high velocity is not convincing to me. Please see my two latest comments to Robert J Martineau above. This assertion has no materialist and scientific basis!
The only way SR related formalisms can make sense (if at all) to me if mass increase, time dilation etc. are only “apparent” to a distant observer in IRF and not a “real” (intrinsic) phenomena of the particle (itself) in motion – a materialist position that I agree with Prof. Eric Lord. To invoke Einstein’s thought experiment: if one could ride on such a particle, he/she would in turn, see us on earth similarly increasing in mass etc.
So, my assertion that you in EM and Engelhardt in GR are inconsistent anti-relativists and that both of you (unfortunately) even if unwittingly have to accept (in the final analysis) all that goes by the name of Einsteinian physics and cosmology, remains valid; like I said before. Regards, Abdul
Dear Abdul,
I have no problem with your interpretation.
But from my perspective, provable correct calculation of velocities and transversely measurable mass of charged massive elementary particles supersedes any theoretical interpretation, and this has nothing to do with any formalism.
Best Regards
André
Dear André, apparently you could not substantiate your assumed E/B=v (which I didn't write as vectors, of course) with any serious reference whatsoever.
Even then, it is still needed to be proven that it is meant as E and B that emerge from the same charge, at speed v. That is indeed impossible.
Science, and especially electromagnetism and electrodynamics are more than mathematical games. They must be substantiated by phenomenology.
I don't care if you found an audience for your assumptions, but personally, I prefer to be more than a king cyclope in the land of the blinds.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Thierry,
I scanned back the sequence of our conversation. It was you who addressed me, asking questions about the trispatial model, not me.
You then became irritated for no reason that I can understand about the answers that I provided with supporting references, almost immediately misquoting parts of my answers, warping their meaning like Mohamed just also did, that I then tried to rectify according to the original meaning. You then practically accused me of lying and being a fraud (your expression).
And to top it all, you come on again to me without having verified any of the references I gave, like some sort of self-righteous and self-promoted defender of your personal beliefs about science, again irritated about my contributions. Everyone here has the right to exchange his ideas with others. There are rules in RG about respectful interaction between people.
I never impose myself upon anybody to then treat them like this during any of my exchanges of ideas and do not tolerate being treated like this by anybody.
Quote from the RG rules of behavior:
"People use ResearchGate to discuss their work and engage with researchers in their field. We believe that scientific disagreements and healthy scientific debate can lead to great progress. To facilitate these important conversations, we ask that our members respect each other's ideas and acknowledge the diversity of thought and opinion."
https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/ResearchGate+Community+Guidelines
This will be my last answer to any of your messages.
I prefer to interact with people who exchange ideas, information and references with courtesy.
Dear André,
I am very surprized and puzzled by your very emotional reaction. I never adressed you otherwize than purely scientifically, and factually.
I assume that you would agree that the presentation of utter wrong equations and wild speculations of concepts, as if they were, directly or indirectly, suggested by James Clerk Maxwell and Louis de Broglie themselves or through their work, or as if they were provided by standard reference books on electromagnetism, is something that is not only unscientific, but in the first place deontologically incorrect and therefore objectionable.
So, I wonder why you interpret any request from me for such a reference as if I were irritated or as if I were disrespectful or would exhibit a lack of courtesy.
If I am wrong, I would certainly be very interested to know why, based upon trustful references, and I would immediately correct my scientific views. Not you?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Abdul,
If you have a simple scientific calculator handy, you can verify yourself that all relativistic velocities can be calculated from equations that don't use the gamma factor and that Einstein knew nothing about, because they could not exist before Marmet's discovery and publication in 2003 of the relation between the magnetic field and the concept of classical mass.
So this cannot possibly have anything to do with GR as you say.
No need even to read or understand the beginning of the paper. If you go directly to page 17, you will find equation (49) for the relativistic magnetic field B of a moving electron, ultimately stemming from Marmet's understanding of the Biot-Savart equation, and on page 19, you will find equation (58) for the corresponding relativistic electric field E.
In the example given, using the wavelength of the energy required to obtain the known relativistic velocity that an electron would have if moving freely with this energy (4.359743805E-18 j (27.2 eV), whose wavelength is λ= ch/E = 4.556335256E-8 m), Equation (61) shows that dividing E by B will give the exact relativistic velocity corresponding to this energy, as established by the Lorentz force equation, when both electric and magnetic force vectors are equal, which causes a charged particle to move in straight line.
You can try it with the wavelength of any amount of carrying energy λ and you will always obtain the correct relativistic velocity:
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2257
These equations simply did not even exist before Marmet's discovery published in 2003, so they have nothing to do with GR nor with Einstein. Other new equations also allow calculating the same precise relativistic velocities that do not use the Lorentz gamma factor. Ref: equations (38) and (52) in this other paper:
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197
If you do the calculation, you will see that nothing in this development goes by the name of Einsteinian physics and cosmology. This did not exist in Einstein's time. It doesn't emerge from his work, and neither does it emerge from SR or GR in any way, shape or form.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
I respect your views; as I understand that these were formed from your long and well thought-out pursuit of these issues. I do the same for W.W. Engelhardt and Robert Martineau of this forum for examples; who seem to have similar position on mass increment with velocity; even though all of you seem to deny the possibility of time dilation, length contraction etc., aspects of SR. My point is that once you assume mass increment, you have to accept the others also, since these are algebraically related issues.
My opposition (as a dialectical materialist, as you know) to most of modern official physics is more fundamental, as it involves a different world view. For me, a "matter" based objective reality independent of the human mind exists. Our increasing knowledge and understanding is a gradual approximation of that reality. Also for me the physical view of the objective reality is more important than the mathematically derived one; as is unfortunately not the case since the mathematical idealism identified with the name of Einstein.
Mathematics is a creation of men as useful for their practical needs, but in its idealized form mathematics becomes an alienation that blunts human vision. As I said earlier, algebraic term like m = m0 (1 ‒ v2/c2)‒½ hides fallacies, which are not apparent, but contaminates the physical aspect of the question you are dealing with; hence any conclusion based on those mathematical deductions is more likely to be erroneous. It becomes even more harmful when wrong/false claim of “experimental verification” of the mathematically derived conclusions are made; - a peculiar characteristic of modern theoretical physics since Einstein. (Note: I am working on an article on this issue with the possible title: “Relativity and Objective Reality”).
You can derive a particular mathematical relation from different perspectives. I will draw your attention to the famous case of Gerber’s relation and the claim by Einstein based on GR; that we discussed in Engelhardt’s forum. Similarly, particular physical phenomena can be described by more than one mathematical relation. For me the “physical interpretation” of any mathematical relation has priority and not the other way around. As an example, which is very relevant to the topic we are discussing; please refer to the following article by Planck: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Principle_of_Relativity_and_the_Fundamental_Equations_of_Mechanics
I fully agree with the following quote from Planck’s article. “Also as regards the concerns that according to the relativity principle a moving electron would be subject to a specific deformation work, I would attach no decisive importance, because in general we can add this work to the kinetic energy of the electron.
However, the question of an electrodynamic explanation of inertia remains open; but instead there arises, on the other hand, the advantage that it's not necessary to ascribe to the electron neither a spherical form nor even any other form in order to arrive at a certain dependence of inertia on speed. However that may be: a physical idea of that simplicity and universality, as contained in the relativity principle, deserves more than to be examined in a single way, and if it is incorrect it deserves to be led ad absurdum; and that can done in no better way than by exploring the consequences to which it leads.”
Dear Abdul,
You wrote: "My point is that once you assume mass increment, you have to accept the others also, since these are algebraically related issues."
Absolutely not! I think you misunderstand the relation between mass increase of accelerating elementary particles and the algebraic "alternate solution" that Einstein used, which was inappropriate and was used "in lieu of" the electromagnetic mass increase.
The relativistic mass increase is "alternately derived" from electromagnetism in a manner that renders completely invalid the length-contraction/time-dilation alternate solution. It was an invalid and worthless dead-end that caused the whole community to waste their time for the past hundred years.
The reality of mass increase with velocity "completely invalidates" SRT in all of its aspects, and shows that it is "impossible" that length-contraction/time-dilation could be real.
And not only does the mass of elementary particles increases with velocity, it also adiabatically increases with proximity between charged particles according to the same Coulomb interaction law, which is a physically verifiable process that does not even exist according to SR.
But I will not insist. For the first time in history, the complete development is now available and will remain available for the upcoming generation all the same.
Best Regards.
André
Abdul Malek, OK. I have a proposition on this subject & invite falsification, which in 50yrs of research including in the optical sciences I've so far found doesn't exist;
"THERE AREN'T"
Hello Peter,
I welcome you to this discussion on behalf of Robert. First of all I have no respect for the term “falsification” invented by Popper. No body can falsify an esoteric theory; can you falsify the idea that God exists?
I gather from your short response that according to you, “lightspeed (massive) particles” as proposed by Robert does not exist. Well, I think that nobody can “falsify” you, but I would urge you to read my single comment in another forum (also hosted by Robert), that relates to the episode/drama of the FTL neutrino; involving the OPERA experiment of CERN, at the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_physicists_say_that_neutrinos_dont_travel_at_the_speed_of_light_in_spite_of_numerous_experimental_measurements_to_the_contrary
Dear André,
I wish you all the best. I have nothing more to add to this discussion with you other than to re-emphasize that I agree in priciple with the position of Planck (quoted above) and Prof. Eric Lord (I mentioned before) on the question of "mass increase" with speed.
And also the following quote from de Broglie posted by Thierry in another forum. Source: Thierry de Mees:
[The great Louis de Broglie understood what the limitations of SRT are, and he wrote it down in his 1937 book “La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta”: He wrote : "There is, however, one essential difference between Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction and that which, according to Einstein, results from the transformation of Lorentz: the first, indeed, was supposed to be a real contraction provoked by the absolute movement of the body. in the ether, while the second is an apparent contraction relative to the second observer: it derives solely from the way in which the various observers measure their distances and durations, and from the Lorentz transformation, which mathematically expresses the relationship between the measurements. Thus, the apparent contraction of the lengths is complemented by the apparent slowing down of the clocks."
He continued: "In particular, we can perfectly justify the paradoxical fact that the contraction of the rules and the slowing down of the clocks are reciprocal appearances, that is to say that if two observers in uniform relative motion are each equipped with a rule and a clock, the two rulers and the two clocks being of identical construction, each of the observers finds that the rule of the other is shorter than his own, and that the clock of the other retires on his own. Surprising as this reproach may seem at first sight, it is easy to explain when one examines the theory carefully."]
Abdul,
I've never subscribed to 'denial' physics, but I also like to analyse interpretations from data myself as so many use flawed assumptions.
I recall the original 'neutrino' speed estimates were inconclusive, but the killer is that ALL 'massive particles' we are able to accelerate to near c build up the standard photo-electron cloud until it fills (and damages!) the pipe at near c'
Now a neutrino may indeed be found to have some energy when interacted with, and may even propagate ftl, but if so, than for me it is in a NEW CLASS, and NOT a 'massive particle' the smallest of which we've found are the fermions.
That's not deanialism but would point to exciting NEW PHYSICS or at least understanding. W could of course define 'massive particle' differently but would have to find some other 'divisibility' term for those that DON'T propagate fermion pairs at high speed!
So my initial statement stands, but certainly does NOT 'disprove' or 'preclude' (actually I quite like 'falsify'!) any entities beyond current understanding.
Dear Peter
The trispatial model precisely defines the neutrino as a new class of non-massive particles not bound by the light speed velocity limit. If interested, it is described here, as well as its mechanics of emission:
http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue7/A07070108.pdf
It even explains why so few neutrinos have been observed coming from the Sun.
Best Regards
André
Andre,
Had a quick look, yes I agree your analysis (and well recall reading of Lederman et al's 1959-1962 work & discussion of building the 'detector'). that Neutrino's haven't ACTUALLY been 'found' as such, just inferred from a response, but 'some' kind of fast non-zero 'energy' did initiate it.
We really then have an issue of semantics and need better definitions.
The only thing I objected to was the inference of 'ballistics' in travelling 'photon particles', but suspect that was just a nod to still prevalent (outside the optical sciences) if awfully inconsistent beliefs. Semantics again?
Do you agree that all fast moving 'massive particles' right down to electron scale will propagate the pairs as always found in accelerators etc (inc. as; Unruh, Higgs etc. and right up to and beyond bow shocks).
Peter.
Neutrinos are known since Enrico Fermi. It probably constitutes one of the largest known number of particles, other than photons, in the universe. Large number of neutrinos from the sun bathes us and are being measured in an old Mine in Sudbury, Canada (another in Japan), winning a Nobel Award. Neutrinos have been proven to have oscillation - a formalism not possible without rest mass, also the reason why so few neutrinos emanating from the sun are detected. And still you would say, "for me it is in a NEW CLASS, and NOT a 'massive particle' the smallest of which we've found are the fermions”?
For materialist dialectics, as for physics, there can never be any absolute truth or theory, because any “existence” (at all and hence any “idea” or theory about it), is a contradiction of “the unity of the opposites" such that it can be “negated” to a new (negated) existence and so on forever without coming to a termination and this fact conform to dynamism and ever-changing objective reality! Only the false claim of absolute truth or absolute theories like SR, GR. Or God etc., needs “falsification”- which in principle is impossible, precisely because, you cannot "negate" an absolute to anything else!
Dear André,
I am thoroughly confused. In response to Robert you said,
"You wrote: "If it [a photon] is born with a speed less than C, it quickly and forcefully, accelerates itself (no external force needed) to the speed of light in a very short time, and then maintains that speed." I must that (sic) this is an aspect of your analysis that I fully agree with."
Robert's idea of "self-acceleration" is possible, precisely because photon has mass and uses that mass (reversively!) to propel itself. A mass less photon cannot therefore self-propel itself! The same is true for neutrinos.
Now you are saying to Peter, "The trispatial model precisely defines the neutrino as a new class of non-massive particles not bound by the light speed velocity limit"!
If the neutrino is non-massive, then according to Robert it cannot even self-accelerate) at the speed c not to speak of FTL! How can you agree with both Robert and Peter?
Dear Abdul,
I will try to explain more clearly.
No doubt you would agree that a mass that possesses no momentum energy would remain immobile in space. No?
Such a motionless mass for an electron can be mathematically represented by this equation: mo= 9.10938188E-31 kg.
And the invariant amount of energy of which it is made can be represented by this equation: E=moc2=8.18710414E-14 joules.
Now for this "inert" rest mass to be set in motion, some "momentum energy" must be communicated to it. This energy is by very definition "in addition" to the energy E making up the invariant rest mass of the electron.
It so happens that from the electromagnetic perspective, the only way that energy can be communicated to a charged particle such as the electron is by the action of the Coulomb force. Without going in complete details (available in my analyses), it so happens also that by nature, the Coulomb force systematically induces twice the amount of additional energy required to cause the electron to move at any given velocity.
One half remains unidirectional ΔK, propelling the "effective" mass of the electron, which is made up of the mo initial rest mass of the electron, plus a mass increment Δm made up of the other half of the energy induced by the Coulomb force.
So, the total energy of the electron in motion, as can be represented classically turns out in reality to be representable as:
Etotal=ΔK + Δmc2 + moc2.
ΔK propells Δm + mo, and Δm + mo is the same as γmo.
Now to the idea of self-propulsion of free moving photons.
From the electromagnetic perspective, any free moving photon can be represented as a self propelling "mass" in the following manner:
Etotal=ΔK + Δmc2. If you compare with the equation above, you will notice that mo is off, and what remains are two equal quantities of energy, because E/2 =ΔK = Δmc2 by definition in the trispatial geometry.
It is this permanent half-half equilibrium that resolves in the default "equilibrium" speed of light of any free moving photon.
Now to the initial self-acceleration in the trispatial geometry.
When such a bremmsstrahlung ΔK + Δmc2 photon is emitted, for example when an electron is being captured in the rest orbital of a hydrogen atom, we know from experimental evidence that its total energy is 13.6 eV (2.178959988E-18 joules), so
ΔK + Δmc2=2.178959988E-18 joules.
But, at the very moment of release, it cannot possibly start off at a velocity larger than the velocity that the electron had when it was stopped dead in its tracks.
So, at this very moment, there cannot be equality between ΔK and Δmc2, because this would cause the photon to "instantly" move at c, and that it does not make sense that such a jump in velocity could really be "instantaneous".
At this precise "launching moment", ΔK can have by structure just the amount of momentum energy required to propel the Δm mass at the velocity of 2187647.566 m/s that the electron had been moving at, the rest of the evacuating energy making up the Δm component.
In the trispatial geometry, this is untenable by symmetry requirement and as fast as physically possible, energy will flow from Δm to ΔK, until the default half-half equilibrium is established, moment at which the photon will be moving at the default equilibrium speed of light.
The reason why the speed of light cannot be exceeded by photons in the trispatial geometry is precisely because unidirectionally moving energy (momentum) has no choice but to "push against" an equal quantity of energy that is inert translationally, because it is oscillating "transversely" with respect to the direction of motion of the momentum energy.
Now to neutrinos.
From the mechanics of neutrino separation in the trispatial model, neutrinos can only be made of "unidirectional momentum energy" moving unidirectionally, "without" having to "push against" any transversely oscillating other energy component, which is why, theoretically at least, there seems to be no top limit to the velocity of neutrinos in the trispatial model.
It simply seems to be free to naturally accelerate indefinitely, until it presumably spreads out, thins out, and eventually completely vanishes. Remember that "kinetic" means "moving". Seems to be a natural property of kinetic energy to always tend to move.
I really have no idea what happens to it if it does not impact some particle on the way, then communicating its energy to that particle.
Best Regards
André
Dear Peter,
Concerning the comparison of the speed of neutrinos to the speed of light and how this should be made, please see my response to you in my other question about the reluctance to admit that massive neutrinos travel at the speed of light.
Bob
Abdul,
A big problem has always been 'lumping different things together' in one big 'pot'. As our understanding advances and we find differences we distinguish.
In the neutrino case there are significant differences with the condensed 'matter' which we know couples with EM fluctuations. The smallest being the electron etc. These, and all other 'massive particles' also propagate more pairs as they move through the 'condensate/Higgs Field' or whatever you'd like to call the energy that does NOT couple with QM as it's to small.
Now neutrino's have zero or, (even all 3 'types' together) less than a millionth of the electron mass! Lederman, Fermilab head who (eventually) got the Nobel for first so called "detecting" them wrote in 'The God Particle';
"The neutrino has almost no properties: no mass (or very little), no electric charge, and no radius - and adding insult to injury, no 'strong force acts on it."
Our definition of 'massive particle' is quite poor, but at some point the coupling with EM radiation, or lack of it, is a 'phase' or 'gauge' change point we must distinguish with better definitions. I've provisionally referred to; 'sub-matter' states, which we REALLY need to get used to (most still run a mile at 'dark energy' etc despite the 'Higgs field' proof!).
Of course no 'prrof' is ever absolute, as ALL physics is 'provisional', but I suggest we need to be a bit sharper in understanding and distinguishing between what we DO have evidence for!
Robert "Are you saying photons don't exist?",
No. just more consistently defining them, which can resolve many anomalies etc.
We only EVER 'detect' a photon of energy AT an interaction. Otherwise we have only 'waves'.
It seems clear from evidence that nucleus can only absorb or re-emit EM energy in fixed 'quanta' (considered as related to 'orbit radius'). We DO thereby have 'photons' as the LOCAL quantized measures of absorption and re-emission.
Beyond that we just assumed long ago they were 'particles' as we thought space was empty so couldn't support waves. There is ZERO evidence this is true and OVERWHELMING evidence it is NOT! - despite old assumptions and beliefs seemingly carrying on forever in the face of all evidence!
In the optical sciences HUYGENS theory and construction is the modern paradigm, as we KNOW ballistic particles simply don't work. What DOES work, as consistently found, is the helical or twin helical path or paths of 'opposing charges' making up the rotational and translational energies which ADD UP to the quanta of energy triggering an absorption ('detection') event; which is SUBJECT TO the the ellipticity of the charge (helix) orbital (ALL light is to some extent 'elliptically polarised').
The tiny charges can't 'couple' with electron spin, it's the helical motion which can.
So before we get to deep. I could also answer YES, the old idea of a 'ballistic entity' travelling eternally through 'nothing' should have long since been buried! Now we need to be looking at what the 'charges' are; and what the 'condensate' (Higgs field) 'is' which I've suggested could perhaps just be simply smaller scale 'rotations'. ('Turtles all the way down!)
Robert, I hope the post 2 up answers your question, but I'll try to look.
+Abdul, I forgot to attach this from IceCube; showing our limited understanding of neutrino's continues. https://phys.org/news/2018-10-explanation-excess-electron-neutrinos-icecube.html
I actually find the Majorana Fermion and so 'Majoran' give very consistent 'Chiral' based explanations, as detailed in my 2018 fqXi essay. The DFM proves no sphere can rotate clockwise without the other pole rotating anticlockwise! Split in in half? we get TWO, both also with both.
Peter,
It is not a question of explaining things away as you and André in this forum seem to do. As you suggest, “we need to be a bit sharper in understanding and distinguishing between what we DO have evidence for!” Agree 100% with this statement and you also got me started, Peter!
But what “EVIDENCE” DO WE have? As I asserted many times in RG and elsewhere, most of the “evidences” of “New Physics” since the “proof “ of GR by Arthur Eddington (bending of starlight), (to me at least) seems to be subjective and contrived (and may even be fraudulent) to fit the theories. Eddington also seemingly set this trend in modern theoretical physics, when he reportedly said (even if jokingly or flippantly), “Experimental data are valid only when supported by a good theory”. This culture seems to have caught-up with the modern experimental physicists; who dare not disprove the venerated theories and all tests “prove” those theories “with flying colour”. This has been the case for more than hundred years; Lederman’s God Particle included.
All these experiments (that now includes hundreds of physicists from around to world to make it seem “democratic” and more credible) are sponsored by interest groups who have vested interest in establishing these esoteric theories as ideological props. These theories (myths) are irrelevant for natural science; provided no tangible social, scientific or technological practice; and do not qualify as positive knowledge of objective reality, but are mathematics driven myths. This charade (to be blunt) is maintained with the lure of career, fame, fortune and funds for the physicists – “the Scientist Serfs” to borrow the expression from the Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore.
“What evidence we DO have” is that photons are point particles (not extended waves) that have momentum (m x v and also finite rest mass) and can knock-out another point particle like electron form its orbit. We can slow down a EM pulse to a crawl speed through a Bose-Einstein condensate, without the pulse vanishing or decreasing in volume. That, a gamma ray photon under certain condition can give rise to two other point particles (electron and positron). We use these facts on a routine basis in practice. That, a neutrino, which travels at about the speed of light is also a point like particle and because it shows oscillation, also must have some finite rest mass.
The much touted “God Particle” of Lederman, Higgs field and much of SM are just sophisticated myths, masquerading as physics! I had been commenting (under the pseudo name “futurehuman”) on these since 2007, in the Guardian hosted Blog (now disbanded) “Life and Physics” by Prof. Jon Butterworth (Head Physics UCL and the leader of the British Team with ATLAS of LHC). In my comment, I particularly demonstrated in their own reports on the Higgs boson, how it was a contrived conclusion; in the following (linked) articles and immediately following few other articles by Prof. Butterworth on this issue: https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/sep/20/how-the-higgs-boson-is-born-and-how-it-dies-the-most-precise-picture-so-far
I also made an uncommon (for me) prediction and also a general comment on this whole enterprise as early as Jan. 15, 2015: https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/jan/17/a-selfish-turn-around-cern
And what about the "discovery" of GW? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914
Because physicists invented them to explain what their detectors were doing. (Isn't it again humano-centrism to assume that because the maximum measured lightspeed approaches c that c is the speed of light?)
c is the speed of light because transversely oscillating electromagnetic energy apparently cannot move at any other velocity in vacuum.
This is not a convention, but an observed and measured occurrence. Successfully used in all sorts of applications, like Doppler ranging, whose success hinges precisely on the established fact that electromagnetic energy can move only at c.
Not sure what a vacuum is. Is it a substance where n=1? Don't you mean that measured EM energy moves at c/n?
Abdul, Well said, ..mainly, as you seem to have lost sight of the fundamental aim of physics, or at least MY aim! and Andre's I feel.
That is to improve our of our very poor and incoherent understanding of natures workings.
Proferring solutions which have taken many tears to derive and to check are more consistent is NOT; "explaining things away"!!!!!
You only get that impression as philosophy seems to have led you astray from doing REAL physics, which is to objectively study and assess alternative models.
I suggest we won't advance without a little less philosophising to focus on far more core value science, using the SM.
I challenge your " “What evidence we DO have” is that photons are point particles" 100%. You've not challenged or 'shown false' (lol) my statement that we only EVER find a photon of energy in 'point' form on interactions.
What are you imagining we are 'seeing' in a cloud chamber or BEC. Think harder, it is lateral emissions from a SERIES of interactions!
There is LESS empirical evidence of 'point' particles (a 'point' doesn't exist anyway) or tiny ballistic entities, than the Higgs field etc etc you SUBJECTIVELY dislike so much. Your MAY TALK A GOOD GAME BUT THAT'S SHORT OF GOOD ENOUGH TO ADVANCE SCIENCE. Your prejudices are exposed!
Give me all the 'evidence' you can muster of 'point particles' and I'll shoot each one down like ducks in a row.
Then perhaps explain where fermion pairs 'pop-up' FROM when particles are accelerated through the 'vacuum'.
Andre,
I've gone radically further and posited the logic that, as we find dense free electrons in a 2-fluid plasma at all 'surfaces last scattered' between inertial states ('discrete fields') defining local c (including refractive planes) then the electron spin speed itself is most likely to dictate the (LOCAL c) propagation speed of it's (re) emissions! Nothing inconsistent with that has been offered yet.
Dear John,
You wrote: "Not sure what a vacuum is. Is it a substance where n=1? Don't you mean that measured EM energy moves at c/n?"
Not from my perspective. In my world view, vacuum is what lies between all localized elementary charged electromagnetic particles across the universe.
I think that light moves at the velocity that Doppler ranging, for example, confirms without any shadow of a doubt that it moves at, and the preponderance of the evidence accumulated for the past 150 years, ever since Maxwell very precisely obtained it from second partial derivatives of equations established from the data collected during physically carried out experiments, by Ampere, Gauss, Coulomb, Faraday et al.
I do not dispute such an amount of converging accumulation of evidence, grounded on still entirely successful equations established from physically carried out experiments.
Moreover, the internal structure that can be established for the localized electromagnetic photon that can be defined from de Broglie's own hypothesis leads to conclude that it is mechanically impossible for such a localized electromagnetic photon to self-propel at any other default velocity, in conformity with Maxwell's analysis.
If nothing hinders its progress along its trajectory in vacuum, I don't see what could cause it to move at any other velocity.
Best Regards
André
Dear Andre,
I am not saying that photons don't exist, and that other particles don't travel at the speed of light. I am just asking why they travel at the speed of light. I know why atomic particles don't travel at the speed of light, and I am trying to determine, by asking the question, how many people have an understanding why lightspeed particles travel at the speed of light. I know the answer. It is given and discussed in my paper on Photodynamics. I ask the question because I want everybody to think about the question, and try to find a cause. Generally people would say they do this because they have a zero rest mass, like the photon.
Thanks for your interest,
Bob Martineau
Dear Robert,
I understood already that you do not deny that localized photons could potentially exist.
I also have a clear understanding, from the electromagnetic perspective, of why particles such as the electron cannot reach the speed of light, and how their effective masses vary with velocity and proximity to other charged particles.
Regarding why electromagnetic photons travel at the speed of light (in fact, ... can only travel at the speed of light, from my understanding), this understanding progressively sunk in as I was studying de Broglie's hypothesis about what criteria needed to be obeyed for such a photon to remain compliant with Maxwell's theory.
From his own admission, he suspected that 4D space geometry seemed insufficient to allow such a description. It is this hint from de Broglie that I followed and made me eventually hit on the possibility that if all 3 orthogonal vectors of the electromagnetic relation that represents the triply orthogonal relation between the E field, the B field and the direction of motion in space of EM energy, were sort of "exploded" into 3 3D vectorial spaces of their own, mutually orthogonal to each other, this could possibly allow such a description, which I name the trispatial geometry. It is entirely Maxwell equations compliant since it obeys the fundamental triple vectorial orthogonal relation that underlies Maxwell's theory.
This led to the publication of this paper in 2015 that describes de Broglie's hypothetical photon as a self-propelling, self-guiding photon, whose energy can only be split in two parts, one half remaining unidirectional, providing the required momentum kinetic energy while the other half oscillates transversely between an electric state and a magnetic state, being propelled by the first half.
Here is a link to this paper:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf
If you are interested and really dig in until understanding of the whole set up sets in, you will also eventually see why, with this internal structure, it simply is impossible for electromagnetic photons to move at any other velocity. Now, does this match physical reality? This remains an open question.
Best Regards
André
Dear Peter
Effectively, like you, my aim also is trying to understand physical reality, to my own satisfaction anyway. This is what has been driving me since youth. First and foremost, I wanted to understand where we are at and what it is we are into, before my days are over.
For the purpose, I tended to attack and settle (to my own satisfaction only, of course) each issue one at a time. For example, the issue of the speed of light and its potential invariance that John just brought to attention. This was the first major issue that I came to a definite conclusion about.
Once settled, I never looked back, I simply stopped paying attention to the debate that went raging on about this in academia and had my mind free to explore each other related issue with full attention. One by one, I identified other issues as being completely confirmed, and with the then growing pool of such stable premises (from my perspective of course), progressively emerged the complete trispatial model that is now published and that allows reconciling classical/relativistic mechanics and electromagnetism to my complete satisfaction at the level of elementary electromagnetic particles. All equations of each mechanics can be converted in to the equations of the other. This satisfies me, and I am now on to other stuff.
Of course, completely reconciling the fundamental level as described from the trispatial perspective with the macroscopic level remains to be done, but seems to me that nothing escaped me at the bottom level, from my understanding anyway.
What I found interesting in your own research was how the macroscopic observations you described seemed to feel as being related looking downwards to what I observed from the bottom looking upwards.
I still think that we are sort of both mostly correctly looking at the same beast, but from each our different perspective. Metaphorically speaking, you from the macro perspective and me from the submicro perspective, with the relations in between remaining to be clarified, and the last threads to be tied as all finally comes in to clear corrected focus.
Robert seems to also be converging. For example, he is the first I know of who also came to the conclusion of possible self-propelling of photons that is mandated by the trispatial model.
Best Regards
André
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Elementary Particle Physics
- Particle