Dear Ryan,

' ... "As the accuracy in one is equal to that in the other" ... shouldn't that be "is inversely proportional to the other?" - but I still understand your point ...'

Writing the uncertainty principle as dE = 1 / dt, this is Planck's law E = v, so both terms are equally accurate. I mean to say that a higher energy corresponds to a shorter time interval, and as in my book a higher energy is a less indefinite energy, a shorter time is a less indefinite time. Though the consensus is that a higher energy is a less definite energy, I hope to have made clear that this is not nature's idea.

' .... To be understood by the majority of scientists, one must adopt their parlance - study their methods and start with the common assumptions before showing anything new ...'

My problem in studying their methods is that though the methods and models may be sound, they're applied even when they shouldn't, making matters unnecessarily complicated. Having identified photons as carriers of the electromagnetic force, it may seem obvious to suppose other forces have their own carriers and think up fancy names for them like gravitons and gluons. However, if the assumption on which the idea of different forces is based on is invalid, if, gravity is attractive and repulsive, then this throws a completely different light on these 'forces', on the nature of energy and charge, and at least should lead to an inspection as to whether we really need them.

If a particle cannot distinguish by what force or field it is accelerated, if the field by accelerating it brings its inertia to expression as gravity, as a force between the source of the field and the particle, then we should apply the equivalence principle (if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck ... ) by saying that electromagnetism is but a way to manipulate gravity. As long as we insist it to be a wholly different kind of force, completely independent from gravity, it indeed will stay a force unifyable with gravity. So when I read about the quest for the unification of gravity with electromagnetics, about gravitons and Higgs particles and other nonsense like Bing Bang and Inflation hypotheses, I wonder whether I should take the trouble to learn the lingo. To mee it seems that our toolbox (maths and models) has taken over physics, which, however invaluable, for different reasons is a sorry state of affairs. More about ducks you can find in my reply of 9 oct. to Arjen Dijksman above.

P.S. The mountaineer I've run across in some book I don't remember which.

Well, thank you for your long answer which I read. I must admit that it didn't make it clearer probably because I can't see from which standpoint you start. What is gravity for you? What is mass? How do you measure it?

I don't think that "the mass of particles and the spacedistance between them are entirely different and independent quantities" (cf. my essay), nor do I assume that charge is an intrinsic property of particles, so there are a few misunderstandings between us. Never mind, I'll be pleased to read your explanation about how two electrons repel each other.

I quoted from your essay on my "Common sense quantum physics" blog.

Regards,

Arjen

5 days later

Hi Steve

Since a self-creating universe doesn't even exist as 'seen' from the outside, by definition having no cause, it is its own cause and effect. So it doesn't expand into something else but continues to create energy and spacetime within. As seen from within (any point being the center of its own universe), its rim is no sharp border but a transition area where the energy of particles decreases to become infinitesmal: the farther away, the less definite their energy is according to the observer, the longer the wavelengths he observes them in, the less definite their distance and position is, the less spacetime is defined, the more the concept of spacetime looses its significance.

If it can have no beginning nor end and there's no clock outside of it to determine in an absolute sense the time sequence of events, then the universe doesn't so much evolve in time, but creates time as it evolves. As clusters cannot contract without contributing to the creation of low-energy particles at the rim of their universe, particles which at that time, according to their own, local clock, already are part of similar clusters and contribute to the creation of particles at the rim of their universe, this evolution proceeds from both directions at once. Hydrogen clouds which as they contract to stars, coagulate to galaxies, galaxy-like structures condensing into stars and denser objects involved in the forging of particles which in stars are assembled to the elements. So all evolutionary phases keep existing, actively taking part in the creation of energy and spacetime at increasing distances. Though if the universe has no end, all possible phases exist somewhere anytime, it depends on where and when the observer takes a look what landscape and stadia he sees. As the existence of particles, their 'to be or not to be' remains conditional, subject to their energy exchange and they have to keep contracting to even keep existing themselves, a contraction which is indissolubly coupled to the creation of particles elsewhere, the promotion of virtual, potential particles to more real ones by increasing their energy, then one phase in the evolution of particles and clusters doesn't precede the other.

Like the elements are assembled in stars and even at the time they implode, in the process explosively throwing out its outer layers which then form planets, if baryons and quarks similarly are forged in even denser clusters which likewise im/explode and so spread the particles to build stars from, then this suggests that the mass of different kinds or generations of particles depends on the density of the oven they're baked in, so if particle masses are quantified, then so would be the minimum masses (to be able to im/explode) of the cluster types they're forged in -or vice versa. So the stars which need baryons to exist and radiate urge the denser clusters to produce and make them available by im/exploding when finished baking, whereas these hotter forges can only do their blessed work by urging stars and particle clouds to contract and radiate. The clusters built out of the debris of 'preceding' explosions then by contracting act as the condensation seeds or germs aiding the creation of new mass, the promotion of virtual, potential-like particles to more real ones. The stuff which by imploding transforms into a denser class of objects, eventually contracts with similar objects to even denser clusters (which perhaps also will im/explode and set free heavier particle generations ?), to black hole-like objects, in the process contributing to the creation of the low-energy particles at the other 'end' of the circle.

Hello Arjen

I measure the mass of an object by weighing. Though this measures its seemingly attractive mass and involves the kind of gravity which makes things move and radiate, related to expansion of the universe, it is proportional to the mass it preserves by exchanging energy, an exchange which transmits the kind of gravity which doesn't accelerate as it is as attractive as it is repulsive. Though one kind cannot exist without the other, this inertia is expressed when we accelerate an object: the stronger we push, the greater the part of its inertia is expressed as a counterforce, the more its energy exchange with the evironment is diverted to the pusher, the farther its exchange in other directions shifts to red, the more all positions of its path become identical, the faster it moves, the more its path shrinks. Though its inertia, its opposition is as strong as the force it is subjected to and can easily be made much stronger than Earth's gravity, this counterforce cannot be distinguished from the way the Earth pushes against our soles. Though we can weigh it, its mass is in some respects a potential kind of mass, a reservoir the content of which can be brought to expression by subjecting it to a force.

If the elements are forged in stars out of hydrogen and helium, out of hadrons and leptons which are forged in even denser clusters, stars and clusters which as they implode, throw their outer layers into space and so supply the stuff to build stars and planets from, then these particles transform from the extreme conditions, the high-energy exchange inside the cluster to a much calmer world outside. Outside the oven they are forged in, they can only preserve the inertia they acquired by slowing down their clock, by contracting their field, by increasing the distance between their mass centers as measured inside their field, which is what happens as they get expulsed. Gravitationally redshifted, contracted within a tiny volume as measured outside its field, the expression of its mass also is tuned down, its interactions slowed down, its energy exchange simmering over a low flame. It is only as we start pushing it that it heats up again, its energy exchange with the pusher increasing, shifting to higher frequencies, that its inertia increasingly is expressed in the force upon the pusher.

So the definition according to which the mass of a particle is greater as its position is less indefinite, which assumes particles to create and preserve each other by exchanging energy, unifies relativity with quantummechanics. Whereas the usual reasoning why clocks slow down in a gravitational field or when moving is of a somewhat formal, mathematical kind, this mass definition shows the physical reason for these features, why spacetime has the physical properties it has, why the mathematic reasoning works, its logic derived from what to nature is logical, from its laws of physics instead of the other way around.

Anyhow, a consequence of this is that we need gravitons nor higgs particles. What's more, if the charge sign indeed only refers to the phase of particles with respect to each other, then the so-called strong force, invented to explain why the strong repulsion between supposedly positively charged protons does not prevent them forming atomic nuclei, might be less mysterious than we suppose it is, so photons perhaps suffice to do all messaging. After all, would nature be so inefficient as to create mass-challenged particles that need higgs particles to provide them with mass, and in addition fabricate gravitons to express that mass just to oblige physicists who prefer mathematic models above physics ?

As to the electron repulsion, perhaps this is due to their spin as the spin direction affects the orientation of the field lines along which it exchanges energy with its environment, the exchange fixing its compass in some particular direction. If three independent spin axes are associated with three different properties or different expressions of the same property, then some axis-up/down combinations may produce the behaviour we see, other combinations annihilating. Though this would make it easier to understand how we can manipulate such anti-electrons, that does not prevent any particle to oscillate between opposite states, to be its own antiparticle.

18 days later

Part 2 of my comment on the essay of Arjen Dijksman.

Though a particle is an oscillating piece of spacetime, a pure wave phenomenon, it can behave like a tangible, pellet-like thing. As time passes slower where the field is stronger, nearer its mass center, it offers an increasing opposition to a probe trying to penetrate the field. So if with very tiny fingers we would pinch the piece of contracted spacetime we call particle, we would feel spacetime become more viscous, more frozen in time, offering a stronger opposition as we pinch, increase the pressure, so it would feel like a tiny pea.

That it doesn't exert an enormous gravitational attraction on the particles of our miniature fingers at such small distances is because it takes so much energy to decrease the distance between particles. Instead of blaming the uncertainty principle for this repulsion, if we had respected the law of action = reaction, that is, acknowledged that the mass of a particle is as much the source as the product of its interactions, we would have understood the ambivalent nature of gravity far earlier, thwarting itself by slowing down in time the effects it is supposed to cause.

With however much energy we collide fundamental particles to decrease the distance between their mass centers, there's no minimum distance or surface after which begins something different, so there's nothing special to find at their mass center. If we could stop a particle moving away when we press another particle to it, we would increase its energy, its mass density without ever being able to press their mass centers together. Like a black hole cannot have a horizon if it is to express the mass behind it as gravity, requiring a two-way traffic which is incompatible with a horizon, a fundamental particle has no horizon. Holes and particles then don't sport singularities: though there is no maximum density or minimum length in nature, real objects have a finite density and volume.

A universe where the proton would be, say, 5 % heavier or lighter than it is in ours, would to its inhabitants look not much weirder than ours does to us. So the question is whether the mass ratio's of the different particles possibly is to some extent arbitrary. The idea that only one exact ratio is possible (a ratio which it is the aim of physics to be able to predict), perhaps expresses a rather magical view on our world, akin to the idea that there's only one god. If our protons would be a bit lighter, all emission lines would be shifted to red compared to what they are now. As a lighter electron would cause a similar redshift, the question is whether the p / e mass ratio has to remain the same, or if another ratio would produce a universe not much different from ours. This would depend on whether we can distinguish the source part of the mass of a particle from the mass it owes to its interactions. If the mass of particles depends on the specific interaction, then so would be their mass ratio.

As we would see a distant galaxy redshifted even if it were at rest with respect to us, events and processes proceeding slower farther away, we might say that, seen from here, the particles involved in the production of these red-shifted photons are still being created, in the process of acquiring mass. If the violins elsewhere are tuned at lower frequencies as they are playing at larger distances so observed mass ratio's between particles may vary with the distance, converging to the values we find here as they are closed to us, then mass ratio's would vary with the evolutionary phase of particle clusters, with their density, which depends on the local mass distribution. So I wonder if with collider experiments to test ideas why particles have the mass ratio's they have, we aren't barking up the wrong tree ?

a month later

As the essay is the report of an investigation in progress, I'd like to be able to change it, to delete some parts, to rework others and add to it, as well as revise some replies and comments, as some ideas will be proved wrong or irrelevant as my view evolves.

As I cannot do this here, you can follow this evolution at www.quantumgravity.nl

Reply 2 to Ryan Westafer

Reply 2 to Ryan Westafer

"As the accuracy in one is equal to that in the other" ... shouldn't that be "is inversely proportional to the other?"

On second thought, as this seems to be a widespread misunderstanding, here's why I mean 'accuracy':

dE . dt = 1, or let's write a . b = 1

for a = 9,5, b = 1,053

for a = 10.5, b = 0.095, so as 9,5 < a < 10,5, delta b = 1,053 - 0.095 = 0.958

for a = 9.95, b = 0.100

for a = 10,05, b = 0.099, so as 0,995 < a < 1,05, delta b = 0.100 - 0.099 = 0.001

So the more precise, the less indefinite a is, the less indefinite b is.

Write a Reply...