What is the origin of mass and the progress in physics?

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
How do you fix the radius? How do you measure the circumference? You will have to use some kind of mechanical (or optical) equipment. This equipment undergoes changes in a gravitational field. So there cannot be an independent measurement of the space itself.

It doesn't matter whether the space is "really curved" or all your measuring instruments are changing in a way that makes it look curved: if the ratio comes out other than π&, then space is defined to be curved.

No, why should that be? I repeat the point: we do not need a specific theory of gravity.

Of course we do. We need to be able to predict the orbits of bodies, the deflection of light, etc. If you want to explain these gravitational effects by a variable light speed, fine, but you still need a theory.

The variance of the speed of light near a big object is an experimentally proven fact.

The speed of light varies in a non-inertial frame. If you want to postulate the speed of light as a scalar-valued field in space, you're welcome to, but this is not proven by Shapiro or anyone else -- it is not the same as general relativity's prediction, and you need to test it.

The cause of it is most probably the interaction of the particle (photon...) with the field of the other forces inside the object.

Speculation ignored. Try again if you ever develop a theory.

Both axioms you mention are "equivalent" to the equivalence principle.

Both axioms have the equivalence principle as consequences.

My question was: where is the experiment which is precise enough to decide about the factor of 1.5 ?

I already answered your question.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, it is meant that both statements are equivalent.
...
The results which can be proven by the experiment should be the same in both cases.

You miss my point. Your derivation of the location of the circular photon orbit yields a different location than GR's derivation. You even consider it a "good point to decide which way is correct."

So how can your pet theory be equivalent to GR when it makes testably different predictions?

The variance of the speed of light near a big object is an experimentally proven fact.

I don't think you understand what this means in the context of GR. What is varying is coordinate velocity. If you know classical physics, this should be at least somewhat familiar under the name generalized coordinates; the derivative of your coordinate position is, in general, not your velocity.

And, incidentally, the coordinate velocity of light will generally be dependant on the direction in which the light is travelling, so you cannot simply assign a speed of light value to each point in space. (if you want to be equivalent to GR)

In fact, I had an idea very similar to yours when I was in high school, and I abandoned it because of this directional dependance. A "density of space" type model simply cannot be compatable with GR.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
Except the results that I derive in my website and the perihelion shift (which I will add): which statement of GR were ever quantitatively tested?

There are dozens of quantitative tests of GR. I already gave you a reference.

My textbooks about GR say that the velocity of light only depends on the location, not on the direction. I will check that.

The speed of light depends on the frame, which includes the motion of the observer, not just the position.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Your derivation of the location of the circular photon orbit yields a different location than GR's derivation. You even consider it a "good point to decide which way is correct."

My derivation of the photon orbit used an approximation for large r. Sorry for the mistake.

But anyhow: What about "testable ... predictions"? When or where was the Schwarzschild radius ever quantitatively tested in an experiment??

Except the results that I derive in my website and the perihelion shift (which I will add): which statement of GR were ever quantitatively tested?

And: what means "pet theory"? I do not find it in my dictionary.

And, incidentally, the coordinate velocity of light will generally be dependant on the direction in which the light is travelling, so you cannot simply assign a speed of light value to each point in space. (if you want to be equivalent to GR)

It is not my intention to be equivalent to the formalism of GR. It is my intention to provide those results identically which are experimentally proven.

My textbooks about GR say that the velocity of light only depends on the location, not on the direction. I will check that.

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
It doesn't matter whether the space is "really curved" or all your measuring instruments are changing in a way that makes it look curved: if the ratio comes out other than ð&, then space is defined to be curved.

No, this is the difference I mean. It is the difference between the relativity of Einstein and the one of Lorentz and Poincare. For a contraction of an object we know physical causes (the behaviour of the fields). For the contraction of space we do not have any physical causes. Ii is just philosophy.
Similarly the fact of dilation. The reduction of the frequency of periodic processes follows directly and very physicall from the internal oscillations of elementary particles. In contrast to this is the statement of the dilation of "time" again purely philosophy.

If you want to explain these gravitational effects by a variable light speed, fine, but you still need a theory.

We have this theory already: Classical optics and particle oscillation. The deflection of light follows quantitively correct from the refractiton and from the internal oscillations of elementary particles.

The reason that Einstein developed his version of relativity was caused by the fact (from today's view) that he could not know about particle physics. When he developed relativity it was not even certain that atoms really exist. - This was the historical reason. Historically also the cultural situation in Germany of that time which promoted Einstein compared to the other physicists (like Lorentz and Poincare). - Sometimes it can be useful to know the history.

Speculation ignored. Try again if you ever develop a theory.

The curvature of space and time is the most scpeculative and most vage (and logically never provable) theory which exists.

Both axioms have the equivalence principle as consequences.

Newton's equation F = G * m*M/r^2

states that m is also the inertial mass. This statement *is* the equivalence principle.
I have derived it. Who else?

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
No, this is the difference I mean. It is the difference between the relativity of Einstein and the one of Lorentz and Poincare. For a contraction of an object we know physical causes (the behaviour of the fields). For the contraction of space we do not have any physical causes. Ii is just philosophy.

No, you are the one who is arguing philosophy. If two interpretations lead to the same physics, then it is a philosophical opinion which interpretation one likes -- it is not a matter of physics. Geometry is neither more nor less a "physical cause" than contraction.

We have this theory already: Classical optics and particle oscillation. The deflection of light follows quantitively correct from the refractiton and from the internal oscillations of elementary particles.

No, you do not have a theory. You have no field equation which predicts, given a particular source configuration, what the speed of light as a function of position will be. You have a formula that gives that function for the special case of a spherically symmetric, static body. This is possibly a solution of some theory, but it is not a theory.

The reason that Einstein developed his version of relativity was caused by the fact (from today's view) that he could not know about particle physics.

This is nonsense. Einstein's version of relativity explains particle physics quite well, in the form of quantum field theory.

When he developed relativity it was not even certain that atoms really exist.

Actually, Einstein's work on Brownian motion in the same year was regarded as the convincing case that atoms do really exist.

The curvature of space and time is the most scpeculative and most vage (and logically never provable) theory which exists.

It is neither speculative nor vague. As for how you choose to interpret its predictions -- in terms of geometry, or otherwise -- you can never prove or disprove an interpretation of a theory. That's what the word "interpretation" means. Arguing over interpretation is a matter of philosophy, not physics. The physics is in how well the predictions of the theory agree with observations.

Newton's equation F = G * m*M/r^2

states that m is also the inertial mass. This statement *is* the equivalence principle.
I have derived it. Who else?

Newton. Einstein.

 

[elas]

Surely you should not be argueing over the things Einstein got right, but over the things he got wrong.

Relativity does not give a correct explanation of the observed rotatation of stars around the galatic centre. Neither (according to Enc. Brit.) does it give an acceptable explanation of the transmission of light between galaxies (see: Enc. Brit. Unsolved problems of physics).

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by elas
Relativity does not give a correct explanation of the observed rotatation of stars around the galatic centre.

It does, if you accept the existence of dark matter, and there are other reasons to do so besides explaining galactic rotation curves.

Neither (according to Enc. Brit.) does it give an acceptable explanation of the transmission of light between galaxies (see: Enc. Brit. Unsolved problems of physics).

I don't have the Encylopedia Britannica. Could you elaborate?

 

[Albrecht]

Originally quoted by Ambitwistor
If two interpretations lead to the same physics, then it is a philosophical opinion which interpretation one likes -- it is not a matter of physics.

The slowing down of clocks etc. is the consequence of the internal rotation of elementary particles, which is a fact. The assumption that "time" itself slows down is a statement, nothing more.

When Copernikus stated the helio-centric view of the planetary system, the next question was: why do the planets orbit the sun? The answer of Rene Descartes was: It is a fundamental law in this world that everything has the tendency to orbit. In contrast to him Newton did have a law of motion and a theory of gravity. - Wasn't the latter the real physics?

Einstein told us that the time is slowing down with motion as a fundamental law of physics. This is very similar to Descartes. Main stream physics is still lacking the correspondence to the step of Newton.

You have no field equation which predicts, given a particular source configuration, what the speed of light as a function of position will be.

The field equations descibe how the speed of light is reduced. Not why. The answer to the "WHY" would be physics.

Einstein's version of relativity explains particle physics quite well, in the form of quantum field theory.

So, why do we not know what the origin of mass is? Why do we deal with odd thoughts like the Higgs fields? Even if the Higgs theory would be true, it is not able to tell what the mass of e.g. the electron is?

So we know very little about this. Einstein founded relativity ca. 100 years ago. He died ca. 50 years ago. He did not know these problem and could have not answers to it.

Newton. Einstein.

Lets begin with Newton. In his equation F = G * m*M/r^2 Newton had to assume that m is the inertial mass of an object and works as well for gravity. This assumption is the assumption of the equivalence principle.

How can mass cause a gravitational acceleration? Elementary particles have, according to the standard model, no mass by it's own. Mass is a dynamic process within the particle which is dominated by the strong force, in a certain configuration of it`s constituents. Why does the strong interaction cause a gravitational acceleration just in a specific configuration? Who anwers this? Or, to speak with Einstein, why should this specific configuration cause the space to get curved? Ever heard an answer??

Originally prosted by elas
Surely you should not be argueing over the things Einstein got right, but over the things he got wrong.

We have too many open questions. My textbooks say that Einstein's gravity is in conflict with particle physics (QM). No one knows the origin of mass. (There I have in fact a theory, in contrast to main stream physics, which works quantitatively correct
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass )
There is in fact still to do a lot in physics.

It does, if you accept the existence of dark matter

Dark matter is real guesswork. It shows a bit how helpless present astronomy is when they attempt to explain the expansion of the universe.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
The slowing down of clocks etc. is the consequence of the internal rotation of elementary particles, which is a fact.

No, it isn't. (What is the "internal rotation of elementary particles", anyway? Intrinsic spin?) Time dilation is empirically independent of any known property of particles.

The assumption that "time" itself slows down is a statement, nothing more.

When all physical processes are observed to take place more slowly, that is the definition of "time slowing down".

When Copernikus stated the helio-centric view of the planetary system, the next question was: why do the planets orbit the sun? The answer of Rene Descartes was: It is a fundamental law in this world that everything has the tendency to orbit. In contrast to him Newton did have a law of motion and a theory of gravity. - Wasn't the latter the real physics?

Newton merely gave a more precise statement of a body's tendency to orbit; he didn't specify a mechanism any more than Descartes did. Newton was quite clear on this, when he stated that he did not frame hypotheses.

The field equations descibe how the speed of light is reduced. Not why. The answer to the "WHY" would be physics.

You do not have an explanation of "why" the speed of light is reduced, and you don't even have an equation that will predict, in general, how it is reduced.

So, why do we not know what the origin of mass is?

Um, because we aren't omniscient and don't know everything about physics?

Why do we deal with odd thoughts like the Higgs fields?

Because they work.

Even if the Higgs theory would be true, it is not able to tell what the mass of e.g. the electron is?

Not from first principles, no.

So we know very little about this.

Yes, there are things we don't know about physics. The existing laws of physics will have to be extended or replaced. So what?

How can mass cause a gravitational acceleration? Elementary particles have, according to the standard model, no mass by it's own. Mass is a dynamic process within the particle which is dominated by the strong force, in a certain configuration of it`s constituents. Why does the strong interaction cause a gravitational acceleration just in a specific configuration?

You are confused. The strong interaction does not dictate mass or gravitational acceleration. The Higgs mechanism dicates mass, and a theory of gravity dictates the resulting gravitational field of that mass.

Who anwers this? Or, to speak with Einstein, why should this specific configuration cause the space to get curved?

What "specific configuration"?? Any mass/energy will curve space.

We have too many open questions.

Be that as it may, you don't have any answers.

No one knows the origin of mass. (There I have in fact a theory, in contrast to main stream physics, which works quantitatively correct

You can't predict the masses of the particles any better than anybody else, and unlike the Higgs mechanism, you have no coherent description of the origin of mass that is quantitatively consistent with the framework of Yang-Mills quantum field theory. I see nothing to recommend your theory, which is vauge and useless.

Dark matter is real guesswork.

It's better than anything else that has been proposed.

 

[elas]

You do not have an explanation of "why" the speed of light is reduced, and you don't even have an equation that will predict, in general, how it is reduced.

The speed of light is directly related to field elasticity.

So, why do we not know what the origin of mass is?

Mass originates from the reduction of the vacuum force. the rest energy of the mass and the vacuum force at a given point is always equal to the same quantity, (constant).

Why do we deal with odd thoughts like the Higgs fields?

Because no one applied the Law of Economy to Quantum Physics.

How can mass cause a gravitational acceleration?

It does not. Gravitational acceleration is caused by the vacuum force.

We need to be able to predict the orbits of bodies

Of course we do and if you read the reports on the rotation of galaxies you will know that this is where GR fails completely. The outer stars are orbiting 5 to 6 times faster than GR predicts, and should (according to GR) be flying off out into space.
GR also fails to predict the observed gravitational relationship between galaxies within a group of galaxies. Add to this its failure to predict the observed universal expansion and tell me please, what is left of GR?

 

[spacetravel101]

If I remeber correctly, the rotation of the outer stars is directly a function of the super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
If I remeber correctly, the rotation of the outer stars is directly a function of the super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy.

Actually, the supermassive black hole makes a negligible contribution to a galaxy's mass. (For our galaxy, the black hole is a few million solar masses, which is about 0.001% of the luminous matter in the galaxy -- and that's not even counting the dark matter.)

 

[elas]

If I remeber correctly, the rotation of the outer stars is directly a function of the super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy.

A Black Hole is just another vacuum field where the density of the force carrier is high due to a high vacuum force. You can get some idea of how this works from my explanation of atomic structure; simply repeat the process on a larger scale.
This is the beauty of of the Vacuum Model in that every structure from quark to black hole can be seen to be a repitition of a single structural building process, nature simply repeats itself in different volumes and densities in order to produce the variety we observe (and are part of).
Given that vacuum is a negative quantity and the force potential of the mass has a positive quantity then at any given point

Vacuum force plus latent energy force equals zero

This applies to all fields regardless of changes in volume and density.

If you then look at my explanation of movement you can see that the greater the density of the force carrier the greater the drag it applies to movement of the vacuum field. Given that photons pass through vacuum fields of other particles (including gravitons) then one can understand how the speed of light is controlled by nature.

An imbalance in the number of particles in two or more adjacent groups creates an imbalance in the vacuum fields, given rise to so-called magnetic action, in reality there is no separate magnetic force it is a variation of vacuum force.

This concept of a vacuum theory does not invalidate current theory, it changes the way current theory is explained, thereby allowing the question of how and why to be answered.
So far it seems to be the relativity groups who are trying to develope a vacuum theory to replace the unsatisfactory relativity theory. But particle and quantum physics groups need to wake up to the fact that if we want a T.O.E. then vacuum theory is the simplest way forward. Black Hole and String theories are an unwarrented distraction. Particle and quantum physicists already have all the data needed to build a vacuum theory, relativity groups do not.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Elas, you forgot to mention that all of your responses have nothing to do with the known laws of physics. If they came from a theory you made up, you need to specify the theory (and that means equations), and its predictions. If you can't do that, then you have no basis in making these claims.

By the way, "what is left of GR" is the dozens of experiments that which have verified GR's predictions to high precision. Dark matter issues or not, people don't accept GR just for the fun of it: they accept it because it works extremely well in a wide variety of circumstances.

And no, GR does not "fail completely" when it comes to rotation curves, universal expansion, etc. It only gives the wrong prediction if you assume that all the mass-energy in the universe is luminous. But we know that is not the case; the question is just a matter of, how much of it is non-luminous, and why?

 

[Albrecht]

Originally quoted by Ambitwistor
(What is the "internal rotation of elementary particles", anyway? Intrinsic spin?) Time dilation is empirically independent of any known property of particles.
...
When all physical processes are observed to take place more slowly, that is the definition of "time slowing down".

From the Dirac equation it follows that the electron performs an internal oscillation with c. (This causes the spin and the magnetic moment of it). From the dependency of the gyromagnetic relation from the mass of an elementary particle, it can be concluded that this fact, the internal oscillation with c, is universal for all elementary particles.

If now a particle is moved then the oscillation frequency has to slow down to keep the oscillation velocity at c in relation to the observer or to the frame at rest. This follows simple from the theorem of Pythagoras which leads directly to the Lorentz factor. You find the calculation in detail in my website http://www.ag-physics.org/rtime

All objects are built by elementary particles. That makes this behaviour universal. In such situations it happens easily that humans take it as a universal property of nature. But making physics should mean to find the details.

A similar phenomenon is the equivalence of mass and energy. Both are different physical parameters. As another consequence of the similar structure of all elementary particles our measurement show this equivalence. But we loose information if we mix both parameters.

Newton merely gave a more precise statement of a body's tendency to orbit; he didn't specify a mechanism any more than Descartes did.

The following happened in sequence:
1. Copernicus detected that the planets orbit the sun (only the fact, nothing more)
2. Kepler gave us a kinematic law which described the relation between radius, angular velocity and period of their motion
3. Newton presented a dynamic law from which 2. can be derived.

This is the normal step-wise development of physical understanding.

Regarding GR we are somewhere between step 1 and step 2.
Step 3 is still completely open.

You are confused. The strong interaction does not dictate mass or gravitational acceleration. The Higgs mechanism dicates mass, and a theory of gravity dictates the resulting gravitational field of that mass.

I have shown (on my web site) that the inertial mass results from the strong interaction and the internal structure of an elementary particle. According to this, the mass depends on the size of a particle. I applied this to the electron: From it's magnetic moment the radius of the electron can easily be calculated. If I take this radius and insert it into my formula, it yields the correct mass of the electron with a residual deviation of 0.1% . (This is because I ignored electric effects). - To my understanding this is a good proof of this model.

It is true that there are still physicists who believe in the Higgs theory. This will continue for another ca. 3 years from now. Then the LHC at Cern will be finished and will have started operation. And people will have to realize that they do not find Higgs bosons even at that energy. - Anyway, even if the Higgs theory should be working, it is obviously not able to provide results like the one mentioned above for the electron.

Originally quoted by elas
Mass originates from the reduction of the vacuum force.

Can you please explain how this works, of correspondingly what "vacuum force" is?

GR also fails to predict the observed gravitational relationship between galaxies within a group of galaxies.

Astronomy has these problems to explain the motion of galaxies and the expansion of the universe in general. The assumption of dark matter is an attempt to find an answer. To my opinion it is very probable that gravitation does not depend on the mass but on the number of elementary particles and on their fields. That would mean that also neutrinos can give a considerable contribution to the gravitational field.

For our planetary system we do not notice this. It does not cause a large numerical error if we assume that the mass is the origin of gravity. The objects in our system have a very similar composition.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
From the Dirac equation it follows that the electron performs an internal oscillation with c.

No, it doesn't.

(This causes the spin and the magnetic moment of it).

You made that up. The Dirac equation doesn't actually say that. It does say something about spin, but it doesn't say it's due to any "internal oscillation". It certainly does not say that spin is due to the orbital motion of two particles, nor have you recovered the Dirac equation from your model.

1. Copernicus detected that the planets orbit the sun (only the fact, nothing more)
2. Kepler gave us a kinematic law which described the relation between radius, angular velocity and period of their motion
3. Newton presented a dynamic law from which 2. can be derived.

Regarding GR we are somewhere between step 1 and step 2.
Step 3 is still completely open.

What are you talking about? GR has a dynamic law from which 2 can be derived: the Einstein field equation.

I have shown (on my web site) that the inertial mass results from the strong interaction and the internal structure of an elementary particle.

No, you haven't. You don't even have a theory, let alone experimental support of it. No field equations, no ability to calculate scattering cross-sections, no ability to incorporate the observed gauge symmetries, no consideration of the stability of particle pairs under collisions, pretty much nothing at all related to the dynamics of particle interactions.

It is true that there are still physicists who believe in the Higgs theory. This will continue for another ca. 3 years from now. Then the LHC at Cern will be finished and will have started operation. And people will have to realize that they do not find Higgs bosons even at that energy.

Ah, the last refuge of the crackpot: "I can't prove them wrong, but history will vindicate me."

- Anyway, even if the Higgs theory should be working, it is obviously not able to provide results like the one mentioned above for the electron.

To my opinion it is very probable that gravitation does not depend on the mass but on the number of elementary particles and on their fields.

Once again, groundless speculation with no testable theory to back it up.

Look, I'm tired of this discussion. You never say anything real about physics, just a bunch of claims you make up and never support. You haven't produced a theory of gravity, and you haven't produced a theory of elementary particles. Anybody can make up "successes" if they consider only one or two physical phenomena --- there are numerous theories that agree with experiment in a few cases --- but a real theory requires more than that. If you ever produce a field equation, it might be worth talking about. Until then, it's pointless discussing a vague theory, because you can't compare it to all of the experiments that have been done.

 

[elas]

You never say anything real about physics

All the work on the opening page of my website is based on graphs constructed using 'Emsley's' 'Tables of Elements', a standard work in Particle Physics, the author being on the staff of Cambridge University, a world leader in Particle and Quantum Physics. A large number of the quantities used were found by experiment; the rest are predicted from known quatities. This is reality as far as we know it.

The interpretations I make are new and therefore do not contradict current theory since current theory makes no such interpretations, it deals only with predictions. I am not concerned with prediction, but with structure. My work explains observed structure and therefore is an attempt to explain the reality of particles and wave structure .

There is a world of difference between prediction and reality and I am the one dealing with reality. On that basis I challenge you to justify the statement you made, which is quoted above at the start of my reply.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Predictions are observations which may be made. Any theory must make these, and these predictions MUST match all previous observations as well, or do a damn good job convincing us why the way we observed something was flawed. You have yet to do this. Example: The claim that two particles orbit each other with the speed of light. This is absolutely forbidden by Special Relativity, which is extremely well verified. You need to get a better understanding of the physics before you can be justified in saying that you are correct.

 

[elas]

Predictions are observations which may be made. Any theory must make these

Correct.

Relativity predicts the speed of galatic rotation and is out by 500%.
Relativity predicted the expansion of the universe and got it completely wrong.
Relativity predicted the radius of a black hole and was out by 900%.

Astrophysicist think Relativity will be replaced by either a vacuum or string theory.

I am using particle physics to predict that it is a vacuum based theory that will win this debate. The observations needed to justify my claim have already been made, they just need intelligent interpretation.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by elas
On that basis I challenge you to justify the statement you made, which is quoted above at the start of my reply.

Were you under the impression I was talking to you?

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
The Dirac equation doesn't actually say that. It does say something about spin, but it doesn't say it's due to any "internal oscillation".

I did not evaluate the Dirac equation by myself. But the Austrian Erwin Schrödinger has evaluated it short time after it was published. And he stated that it follows from the Dirac equation that the electron oscillates internally with the speed of light c. This result was to my knowledge never questioned by the physical community. David Hestenes (Arizona) e.g. used it as a basis for his theoretical work on electrons.

The purpose of the Dirac equation was to take relativity into the wave function. To my opinion Dirac has inadvertently found the cause of (special) relativity. I just continue from that point.

What are you talking about? GR has a dynamic law from which 2 can be derived: the Einstein field equation.

Wasn't it clear that this is an analogy? Newton could derive the orbital motion from gravity. Now we have to derive gravity from something more fundamental. That is still an open issue.

Ah, the last refuge of the crackpot: "I can't prove them wrong, but history will vindicate me."

I do not keep it open for an unpredictable future. We have only to wait for a limited time to clarify the Higgs issue.

You never say anything real about physics, just a bunch of claims you make up and never support. You haven't produced a theory of gravity, and you haven't produced a theory of elementary particles.

I have leaned that a theory is the better, the fewer assumptions are necessary for it. My intention is to show that classical physics and a quite simple particle model are sufficient to explain relativity (and in the other case the origin of mass).

I can derive the equivalence principle from my (simple) assumptions and I can also,using the same model, derive the mass of a particle from it's other parameters. I do not know any alternative approach which is doing this.

Once again, groundless speculation with no testable theory to back it up.

(This quote was with reference to a composition dependency of gravity)

The investigations which have been made in the 1980ies to investigate the assumption of a "fifth force" gave some indication to a possible dependency of the gravitational constant on the composition of the gravitational objects. This result is not very significant but could show the direction, where a further investigation could be useful.

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The claim that two particles orbit each other with the speed of light. This is absolutely forbidden by Special Relativity, which is extremely well verified.

It is just the contrary. Did you realize that the two basic particles are mass-less? Where is then the conflict to Special Relativity?

My approach is conflict-free in contrast to the normal conclusions from the Dirac function. The Dirac function is normally interpreted in the way that the electron itself is making an orbital oscillation with c. This interpretation has two problems:

1. As the electron as a whole has a mass, it cannot move with c
2. An object, which orbits on it's own, is a permanent violation of the momentum law.

The standard answer of main stream physics to this conflict is, that this process is subject to QM and as such not understandable by the human brain with normal imagination.

If you accept my particle model, both conflicts disappear and the process is easily accessible by our imagination.

 

[FZ+]

It is just the contrary. Did you realize that the two basic particles are mass-less? Where is then the conflict to Special Relativity?

The idea that they are orbiting - ie. accelerating.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by FZ+
The idea that they are orbiting - ie. accelerating.

Sorry, is this a comment or a question?
I am not sure if I understand what you mean.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
And [Schroedinger] stated that it follows from the Dirac equation that the electron oscillates internally with the speed of light c.

This is not true. The speed of light isn't even a frequency, an angular frequency, a period, or anything else that dimensionally can represent an oscillation.

What is true is that the unobservable phase of the particle's wavefunction oscillates with a frequency mc²/hbar. This most certainly does not represent any kind of internal motion of the particle.

I have leaned that a theory is the better, the fewer assumptions are necessary for it.

Only if it actually works, and can account for everything that existing theories can account for. I need not remind you again that one or two calculations demonstrate nothing.

I can derive the equivalence principle from my (simple) assumptions and I can also,

We've covered this.

using the same model, derive the mass of a particle from it's other parameters. I do not know any alternative approach which is doing this.

Oh yeah? And that works for all particles? Or even all Dirac particles? If it doesn't, your theory is wrong.

It is just the contrary. Did you realize that the two basic particles are mass-less? Where is then the conflict to Special Relativity?

I think Brad_Ad23's point was just that massless particles in special relativity can travel only in straight lines, and therefore cannot orbit. But your theory is not consistent with special relativity anyway.

My approach is conflict-free in contrast to the normal conclusions from the Dirac function.

The predictions from the Dirac equation are logically consistent and in agreement with experiment.

The Dirac function is normally interpreted in the way that the electron itself is making an orbital oscillation with c.

No, Albrecht, that is your nonsense interpretation.

 

[elas]

you forgot to mention that all of your responses have nothing to do with the known laws of physics

All my responses are based on atomic data used in Particle Physics. I do not seek to change the Laws of Physics, but to enforce them. My argument is that the Law of Economy (Occam's Law) has not been applied with sufficient vigour. If doctors treatd medical science the way physicists treat Quantum Physics they would all be doing time for malpractice.

By the way, "what is left of GR" is the dozens of experiments that which have verified GR's predictions to high precision.

Then why did 'Scientific American' feel that the dissatisfaction with 'GR' was sufficient to warrent a special issue on this issue; dealing largely with the need for change. The articles are all by experts in their field.

It only gives the wrong prediction if you assume that all the mass-energy in the universe is luminous. But we know that is not the case; the question is just a matter of, how much of it is non-luminous, and why?

The last article I read on this subject stated that the latest observation proved that the maximum possible quantity of dark matter was insufficient to make up the difference in orbital speeds.

Your comments on equations are so wide of the agreed rules on "What constitutes a new theory" as to be unworthy of a reply.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I need not remind you again that one or two calculations demonstrate nothing.

I have many calculations, but at least 2 of them (origin of mass and derivation of the equivalence principle) are not available from existing theories.

And that works for all particles? Or even all Dirac particles? If it doesn't, your theory is wrong.

It works for all leptons and for all quarks.

On conferences I have asked particle theorists what will happen if no Higgs bosons are found. The answer: We will have to re-think large areas of our physics. - Are we prepared for that?

I think Brad_Ad23's point was just that massless particles in special relativity can travel only in straight lines, and therefore cannot orbit.

If you look to my web site, the basic particles are bound to each other by a multipole field. This makes them orbiting at a fixed distance (which is of course subject to relativistic contraction).

But your theory is not consistent with special relativity anyway.

On the contrary, my model defines special relativity. It is in detail in http://www.ag-physics.org/relat

No, Albrecht, that is your nonsense interpretation.

The interpretations which I have cited about the oscillation within an electron and the difficulty to understand them are copied from David Hestenes, who has done a lot of theoretical work about the electron and particularly it's "Zitterbewegung".

You may give him a call and tell him that he has written "nonsense". Have fun!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
Then why did 'Scientific American' feel that the dissatisfaction with 'GR' was sufficient to warrent a special issue on this issue; dealing largely with the need for change. The articles are all by experts in their field.

Could you cite it? All I could find was this (about SR):

After a century, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which describes the motion of particles moving at close to the speed of light, has held up remarkably well.

I do not seek to change the Laws of Physics, but to enforce them.

Um... ahh, nevermind. You probably already know.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
It works for all leptons and for all quarks.

You can predict the masses of all particles from first principles? What do you get for the values?

On conferences I have asked particle theorists what will happen if no Higgs bosons are found. The answer: We will have to re-think large areas of our physics. - Are we prepared for that?

There are non-Higgs theories that have tried to account for mass, too, like technicolor. They may experience a renaissance.

If you look to my web site, the basic particles are bound to each other by a multipole field. This makes them orbiting at a fixed distance (which is of course subject to relativistic contraction).

Fields, multipole or not, do not deflect massless particles in special relativity.

On the contrary, my model defines special relativity.

A theory with a variable speed of light isn't SR.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You can predict the masses of all particles from first principles? What do you get for the values?

If I know either the size or the magnetic moment, the mass follows from it. The formula is given e.g. in http://www.ag-physics.org/electron

There are non-Higgs theories that have tried to account for mass, too, like technicolor. They may experience a renaissance.

Do they work?

Fields, multipole or not, do not deflect massless particles in special relativity.

There is no conflict with special relativity if a massless particle moves with c on an orbit.

A theory with a variable speed of light isn't SR.

True. But that was not the point.

The point was that 2 massless ("basic") particles orbiting each other fulfill - besides the field contraction already known before Einstein - the conditions for being the origin of special relativity.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
If I know either the size or the magnetic moment, the mass follows from it. The formula is given e.g. in http://www.ag-physics.org/electron

But that is not an independent prediction of mass; it's a relation between mass, charge, and magnetic moment: no different than the Dirac equation, which also does not predict the masses of the elementary particles.

Do they work?

I still hear people mention them when they talk about alternatives to the Higgs mechanism, so I presume that they are not yet ruled out experimentally, but are not as nice as the Higgs mechanism.

There is no conflict with special relativity if a massless particle moves with c on an orbit.

Yes, there is. Special relativity says that a massless particle must move in a straight line.

The point was that 2 massless ("basic") particles orbiting each other fulfill - besides the field contraction already known before Einstein - the conditions for being the origin of special relativity.

Special relativity does not permit massless particles to orbit each other. Perhaps they can if you allow the speed of light to vary, but then, as I said, you have not derived SR, you have derived some other theory.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
But that is not an independent prediction of mass; it's a relation between mass, charge, and magnetic moment: no different than the Dirac equation, which also does not predict the masses of the elementary particles.

Did Dirac find the equation
m = h(bar)/r*c ? Can you please give me a reference for your statetment?

I have presented this origin of mass, which uses the fact that every extended object must behave inertially, at 6 physical conferences till now. During the very engaged discussions no one has ever stated that this idea or the formula which I derived was previously found by somebody else.

Yes, there is. Special relativity says that a massless particle must move in a straight line.
...
Special relativity does not permit massless particles to orbit each other.

Please give me a reference which states this. I have presented this model to some of the German top researchers in relativity. No one has ever stated this. And I do not see where the conflict could be.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
Did Dirac find the equation m = h(bar)/r*c ?

No, but that's irrelevant. You don't have an independent measurement for r; you have to derive it from the magnetic moment. Thus, to determine m, you need to know the charge and magnetic moment of the electron, which is the same as what Dirac needed. You even get Bohr's formula relating the mass to the magnetic moment, except you don't appear to get the gyromagnetic ratio correct. (You mention the g=2 in Dirac's equation, but I don't see how you account for that, and besides, we know that g=2 is wrong too: there are corrections to it.)

Please give me a reference which states this.

Are you denying that, in special relativity, photons always travel along null geodesics of Minkowski spacetime? Or are you denying that the null geodesics of Minkowski spacetime are always straight lines?

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
No, but that's irrelevant. You don't have an independent measurement for r; you have to derive it from the magnetic moment. Thus, to determine m, you need to know the charge and magnetic moment of the electron, which is the same as what Dirac needed.

The Basic Particle model does not tell why an electron exists. It provides the dependencies of it's parameters. It derives the dependency from basic assumptions.

The Dirac equation on the other hand describes the situation correctly using the QM formalism. It does not explain why it is as it is. If Dirac would explain the origin of mass, nobody would look for Higgs bosons.

If tomorrow it would be measured that the electron has a different mass or a different spin or a different mag. moment, the Dirac function could be easily adapted. But the Basic Particle model would in that case be void. The model does not have free parameters in this respect.

Are you denying that, in special relativity, photons always travel along null geodesics of Minkowski spacetime?

I do not talk about photons, but about particles which are really massless.

If the photon is bound into an orbit, this will be a classical dynamic process using the dynamic mass of the photon. The basic particle has no mass / no energy even if moving with c. Mass (and energy) is caused by the configuration of a pair of basic particles. This is the essential assumption of this model.

And also: The configuration of a pair of basic particles constitutes special relativity. Below that level (i.e. below the level of an elementary particle) there is consequently no relativity

 

[spacetravel101]

All this talk and no real progress. Do look up where others are going.
I found this website,
http://www.faraday.ru/faraday_english.html,

if it is true I haven't found anything comparable to this in the West.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Albrecht
The Dirac equation on the other hand describes the situation correctly using the QM formalism. It does not explain why it is as it is. If Dirac would explain the origin of mass, nobody would look for Higgs bosons.

So? Your theory doesn't predict the mass of an electron any better than the Dirac equation does. Your theory requires the same physical input that the Dirac equation does (and gets the answer wrong, too, because it doesn't have the correct gyromagnetic ratio).

If tomorrow it would be measured that the electron has a different mass or a different spin or a different mag. moment, the Dirac function could be easily adapted. But the Basic Particle model would in that case be void. The model does not have free parameters in this respect.

Suppose the electron were measured to have twice the magnetic moment it is believed to have today, all other properties remaining the same. As far as I can tell, your model would give twice the radius and half the mass.

I do not talk about photons, but about particles which are really massless.

Fine. Replace the word "photon" in my questions with "massless particle".

And also: The configuration of a pair of basic particles constitutes special relativity. Below that level (i.e. below the level of an elementary particle) there is consequently no relativity

Your usual handwaving is ignored.