Alternative Models of Reality

James Putnam

Tom,

""Is the acceleration due to gravity caused by the force of gravity?""

"No."

""Are they both forces? If one is not a force, why not?""

"Gravity as described by general relativity is a passive, one-way interaction between matter and spacetime. It doesn't "force" anything. Massive bodies do not resist their motion, in the absence of force."

This is a theoretical conclusion without your giving its justification. Why is gravity not a force? This question is asking for an answer that begins with the first reason for considering that gravity may not be a force. What is it that first distinguishes the nature of the force, or non-force, of gravity from other, or actual, forces?

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom

You must trust that I understand very well both relative motion and current theory.

The intended value of the foundation and FQXi is in 'advancing' fundamental understanding of physics. Improved understanding means NEW understanding, which is increasingly recognised as much needed.

You seem to have some inherent problem with that concept. When James and I do what is the ethos here, examine, challenge and discuss possible new advances on OLD understanding, all you do is insist it must be wrong as it's 'different', so assume we don't understand the OLD versions!!

That view, and comments like; "your new way doesn't explain the old results" are wholly wrong, inappropriate, and to be frank, not at all clever! If you really think there is something then specify it! None of us should be here to 'lecture'.

So lets be clear. I do understand relative motion, all Einstein's machinations, and current theory. Using that as the 'springing point' we are now thinking more deeply about fundamentals. I don't think you're incapable of joining in but you certainly make it look like it!

I've identified a clear difference between effects not examined in SR. A difference between 'The Same as' and 'Equivalent to' in respect to gravitational acceleration, not 'felt' by a body until resisted, and the physical interaction which is ONLY accelerative when 'felt.' This is NEW and subtle, but it's implications may be very important, also encompassing 'speed'. itself.. (James has a slightly different way of expressing it).

Now if you wish to make a contribution of any value, please trust me, it does NOT lie in simply trying to suggest we don't understand earlier views, particularly the most commonly held! That is wrong, unhelpful and indeed quite unscientific. So can you show that you too can let go your fears and 'think outside the box'? Give it a try at least!

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"(James has a slightly different way of expressing it)."

I have said it in different wordings over time. Here is how I prefer to say it:

The Principle of Equivalence belongs to all force.

The reasons why are:

Acceleration is change of velocity, measured with respect to time. Acceleration is the effect of the application of a force that is applied across a distance. The force may be evenly applied or unevenly applied. Objects do not feel force if it is applied evenly, or uniformly. Acceleration exists whether there is a feeling or not. The uneven application of a force will be felt. Non-uniform acceleration of the object's molecules is felt. It is the uneven changes of distance between molecules that is felt. Acceleration is indifferent to the type of force applied. The body undergoing uniform acceleration cannot tell that its velocity is changing. The principle of equivalence should be expanded to apply to all types of forces. Gravity is not unique in this respect.

Maybe that covers it. I say maybe because there has been no effect from saying these things. Perhaps, since the lack of response has been uniform, the effect can't be felt. :-)

James Putnam

In my previous message I stated that: The Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force. I gave reasons why. There was another way of expressing my opinion that was not included. It is to say: The Principle of Equivalence should be done away with and the force of gravity should rejoin the other forces. I choose not to say it this way only because it strikes me as a good way to insure turning physicists off perhaps for all time. The principle is the basis for much of Relativity theory. I think saying that the Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force might have a small chance of attracting interest. In either case, it seems definite to me that something should be said. The current separation of gravity from other forces is not justifiable.

James Putnam

Peter,

"{Your analysis of my proposition is agreed. There is no issue with ebnergy conservation, it's just compressed into less time. Can you explain to Pentcho and Eckard? It does seem hard for most to assimilate."

I did read your response to my description of my understanding of your model. I may give it a try regarding energy conservation because I have asked about it myself and read your responses. I had intended to return for further discussions anyway concerning the mechanism itself. But, rather than start that up at this time, I will see if I can accurately describe energy conservation in connection with your model.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force."

It *does* apply to all forces, James.

It's a relativistic extension of F = ma.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force."

It *does* apply to all forces, James.

It's a relativistic extension of F = ma."

I presume that you mean that nothing is excepted from relativity type effects. I also presume that you do not mean that there is no such thing as force. And I presume that you mean that gravity is not a force while electric force and magnetic force are forces. Finally, I then presume that you and I do not mean the same thing.

I mean that if acceleration and gravity are equivalent; then, acceleration and electric force are equivalent and acceleration and magnetic force are equivalent. The point is that, with regard to the general application of the Principle of Equivalence to all forces, none are forces.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"he point is that, with regard to the general application of the Principle of Equivalence to all forces, none are forces."

That's no problem for a field theory.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The point is that, with regard to the general application of the Principle of Equivalence to all forces, none are forces."

"That's no problem for a field theory."

Ok good. Then in field theory all causes of acceleration, including both the unknown natural causes and all the invented theoretical causes, are equivalent to acceleration. None are distinguished from the group by the Principle of Equivalence. None are forces.

James Putnam

Tom,

I have said in the past that the speed of light varies. I say also that the velocity of light changes. Yes light does accelerate.

When I spoke, in the other recent message, of the photon being emitted by a charged particle, I said only that the particle accelerated and its acceleration led to its emitting the photon. I saw no need to include the acceleration of light because it was not relevant to the point I was making from the perspective of current physics. The photon is brought into existence by the acceleration of the charged particle.

The rest of the photon's history during its travel is important due to latter events, such as the Doppler effect, on the information that the photon carries. Everything that causes the photon to change its velocity becomes a part of its history and is represented in the information that the photon carries.

In my other message, I referred only to the cause of the photon's birth and that that cause was acceleration of the charged particle, and, that the acceleration of that charged particle is represented in the information that the photon carries and later delivers to another charged particle. It is the initial information and the most significant information that the photon receives and delivers.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Yes light does accelerate."

You've no doubt found a way for this to make sense to you, James. However, it doesn't match what we observe. And it doesn't stand up to what acceleration means -- i.e., a smooth continuum of change in speed. For that to be true, the photon would have to have a rest state. But it doesn't -- a photon is at rest only relative to all other photons, and no time elapses for photons.

Best,

Tom

Akinbo Ojo

Hi Tom and James,

Please be careful with the statement, "Yes, light does accelerate". Change of speed for a wave is different from the usual acceleration. For a particle picture, if you say a photon accelerates, what is the initial velocity? If there is no opposing force or any absorption by a target, what will be the final velocity? Anything that you claim accelerates must also be capable of decelerating and being existent at rest, so Tom's caution makes sense.

Regards,

Akinbo

Thomas Ray

Quite right, Akinbo. What all the speculation in this forum about the nature of photons (not just James's) boils down to, is that if special relativity is true, the speculation is false and pointless.

To the best of our knowledge, however, special relativity is a rock solid physical principle.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo,

Hi, I do maintain that light accelerates. However the story is longer than saying that it must then have a rest state. That story begins with making both mass and force defined properties instead of arbitrarily choosing one to be a fundamental indefinable property. Nature has already made its own choices about force and mass. Nature did not leave that decision for us to make.

When mass is made a defined property one learns new answers that immediately reflect that which empirical evidence is communicating to us instead of a mixture of that and human added on inventions such as the indefinable mass. A defined mass makes it known immediately that light accelerates. and, that that acceleration does not begin and end in a state of rest. There is no time when light does not have a velocity.

The rest of the story emerges as one develops higher level physics equations. Those higher level equations are dependent upon the definition of mass. Almost all of physics changes. The physics equations are returned to an empirical form freed of theoretical inventions. Whether one prefers to invent an indefinable mass or work with a defined mass makes a great difference. Empirical evidence tells us what mass and force are if we let it.

James Putnam

"What all the speculation in this forum about the nature of photons (not just James's) boils down to, is that if special relativity is true, the speculation is false and pointless."

Relativity type of effects are real. They remain real whether one chooses to use relativity theory or not. Equations for relativity type of effects remain even after relativity theory is replaced. Speculation is the stuff that theoretical physics is made of.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The physics equations are returned to an empirical form freed of theoretical inventions."

The equations are themselves theoretical inventions.

James Putnam

"The equations are themselves theoretical inventions."

Yes they are theoretical inventions so long as they contain theorists' inventions. Two of those inventions are the indefinable statuses of mass and temperature. Their invented interpretations are clearly identified by their indefinable units. There are other inventions that are harmful but are more difficult to point out. The matter does resolve itself though once both mass and temperature are defined.

James Putnam

F=ma begins its existence as an empirical equation. It begins with the recognition that the empirical evidence of acceleration of objects tell us that, besides the empirical properties of length and time, there are two additional properties. One is the cause of the acceleration and the other is resistance to acceleration. We don't know what the cause of acceleration is but the equation symbolizes it with the letter F. We don't know what the cause of resistance to acceleration is, but, the equation symbolizes it with the letter m. The names chosen for them are force and mass.

There immediately arises a challenge of how to define force and mass. Acceleration doesn't need to be defined. It consists of measures of length and time. There are no properties before length and time by which they may be made defined properties. Length and time are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. We either find a way to define both mass and force using only properties of length and time or we must invent a fundamental indefinable status for one of them. It has not been known how to define both force and mass so the choice was, and remains, that mass would be arbitrarily be made a fundamental indefinable property.

That act was the first intrusion of theory into a physics equations. From that point on f=ma became subservient to a theory instead of representing that which empirical evidence is communicating to us. nature communicates its mechanical information to us by the acceleration of objects. Instead of allowing that evidence to show us what mass is, physicists told the equation that mass would be a theoretical invention.

James Putnam

[deleted]

Peter Jackson's model and the conservation of energy:

We begin with two charged particles located a significant distance apart. They are particle A and particle B. Particle B is at rest. Particle A is headed toward particle B with velocity v. Particle A sends an electromagnetic wave in the direction of particle B. The energy of the wave, as represented by the wave's frequency, is E1. The wave is traveling at the speed of C with respect to particle A. It is traveling at the speed of C+v with respect to particle B.

When the wave arrives it becomes Doppler shifted for particle B. The Doppler shift causes the wave to deliver an increased amount of energy E2 to particle B. Particle B then returns to its original state by emitting electromagnetic having energy E2 at the speed of C with respect to particle B. The equation for conservation of energy, as applied to this example, involves only the amounts of energy received and emitted. They are equal so energy is conserved.

Still, the extra large speed C+v does seem to need additional explanation. If the electromagnetic energy sent from particle A is thought of as a photon, then one is justified in wondering how that extra speed should be taken into account when considering energy amounts. Specifically, one is justified in questioning whether a photon carrying energy E1 at the speed of C+v with respect to particle B must have more energy than a photon carrying energy E1 at the speed of C with respect to particle B. It can seem that the extra velocity v should increase the energy of the photon.

The model takes it into account. The photon was traveling at the speed of C+v with respect to B when it was emitted with energy E1 by particle A. The photon, carries the energy amount E1 up to the point that it is absorbed by particle B. The extra speed v causes the photon to be Doppler shifted. The Doppler shift causes particle B to receive the increased amount of energy E2. Particle B then emits energy E2 and returns to its original state. The energy is conserved. The change in energy was caused by the Doppler shift. The Doppler shift is an effect that is recognized as not violating the conservation of energy.

Ok?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Almost perfect, but a simpler logical explanation also more completely captures the DFM's physical processes.

Firstly (though non-critical in this case), if we neglect to specify a background state of motion (frame), then 'A' moving towards 'B' is identical to 'B' moving towards 'A'. In fact we must assume rest frame A, with B moving towards A in this case because you specified the emissions move at c wrt A. That may not seem important but it becomes so for consistent rationalisation of all cases.

The other essential parameter is TIME. You are actually wrong to state that B receives 'more energy' that A emitted, because the 'period' B received the energy over is simply shorter. It's the same energy, just more concentrated, so the periods 'each side' of the shorter charge contained less energy, balancing the totals over equivalent time.

All 'particles' are non zero in size (wavelength), and at interaction is an evolution over non-zero time. Both the size and time are so small we've simply missed that fact. Doppler blue shift is then simply a 'compression' of the energy ('length contraction' in SR) and redshift a 'dilation' (including of time signals).

Your description was correct but incomplete so didn't open the door to understanding the consistent logic of nature that otherwise confounds us.

Another key axiom is the exclusion principle; No particle or body of mass is a 'point', and it's space cannot be shared. That is true for ALL bodies. The solar system is then a body with an assignable group state of motion, with almost infinitely many other SEPARATE bodies with it and many more within each of them. The DFM has the same hierarchy as 'propositions' in 'Truth Functional Logic'. Suddenly both maths and science are then logical!

Of course it seems the problem is; we humans aren't. But each person who grasps the logic is one more seed which may bear fruit.

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »