When elementary particles first emanated from the quantum vacuum, there may have
remained a connection still propelling their internal motion"
What is the relationship of "first principle" to a singularity, a point of infinite mass, infinite density or energy.
Your view is well argued, but when I think of "first principle" my mind goes to the singularity of the big bang. It is a mystery none of us can relate to, I suppose.
Jim Hoover
Dear James,
Thanks for your note. Yes, good questions. Interestingly, the model takes several steps away from singularities. It uses the word, emanated, to include other possible starting scenarios, some perhaps not even thought about yet. The first principle in this model comes from the single sustaining potential, S, with units of length^2/time^2. (The sustaining potential essentially produces length and time.) Consider equation (5) for available sustaining potential when another particle is present: S = S0 - Vem^2 d / r, (re-interpreted from the Newtonian gravitational potential equation). The sustaining potential goes to zero as opposed to going to infinity. The term Vem represents internal particle motion (described by the other equations) and is tied to gravity.
Yes, no matter how we look at it, it remains a mystery. The single sustaining potential also must have a deeper reality behind it that might not be measurable. The model describes the sustaining potential and the substance of particles as undefined. It is only the motion and interaction that make a difference for our reality.
Thank you for taking a look! I appreciated the way you covered a wide range of reality in your essay.
Kind regards, Russell
I would like to add acknowledgments for those who helped on this essay. Thank you to Maylan Schurch for your insightful comments on the draft and for your encouragement. Thank you to Lynette Bramlett for your proof-reading expertise and encouragement. Thank you to my wife, Amber Jurgensen, for your ever-ready assistance and your patient encouraging support. Thank you to my family for giving me books on science, and thank you to friends who let me bounce ideas off of you. I also would like to thank FQXi for this essay contest.
Kind regards, Russell
Russel
A very valid EM viewpoint and nicely presented. What really hit me, and will earn you a top score from me, was towards the end, with your; "When things start moving and other particles are introduced, the energy potential within the e-m plane changes. A clock within this new reference frame will measure time differently." and initial concept on light changing speed between frames.
This is something I've been exploring to it's logical conclusions, and, although it was a bit of an aside, it seems your intuition was correct as it has shown able to simply unify SR and QM with a simple wave particle interaction mechanism. Please do read my essay and comment if you have time, (but just a quick 'scan over' would miss the complex conceptual point, like many have).
Best of luck with yours, and please do comment re the local speed/change model.
Peter
shoot dang laptop erased a long and brilliant post.
ooasdjfo
anyway russ your essay is groudbreaking and important. Good job.
I rate high now...
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your pleasant comment and for reading my essay. I have seen your posts on other essays and I had planned to read your essay again. I just now gave it a slower read and it is very interesting. Your concept of the speed of light changing as it changes reference frames does seem to correlate with the concept in my essay. I like how you apply the ideas to several observations in nature. When I originally worked out the equations considering a single sustaining potential, I was surprised to see they indicated the speed would change as a particle traveled into different gravitational reference frames. It is encouraging that you have thought through many relativity issues using the concept of a changing speed of light. l will read your essay again and comment on it.
Thanks for spotting that similarity and for your nice comment.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
Dear Tommy,
Thank you for coming back to mention that and for your encouragement. I also want to encourage you. Your excellent essay seems to be a litmus test on several levels. One needs to read essays and comments from the first ones up to get the full benefit. It will get a high mark from me here soon, and I suspect many others have appreciated it who have not commented.
Kind regards, Russell
Tommy, I empathise! So much genius lost forever in cyberspace. Lucky we're only holograms I spose!
Russel,
Thanks for your excellent post, and comprehension. I agree with your points and similarities. Another top score going on. I'll respond under the post.
Best of luck
Peter
What is mass? Consider the well known mass-energy equation.
[math]E=mc^2[/math]
Mass is a scalar modifying a quantity describing motion. c2, in the essay's exploration, is a sustaining potential spread evenly through space, referred to as S.
If mass describes internal motion of particles, there must be a way to analyze the motion by replacing mass with some sort of motion. The essay introduces a set of equations describing one possible analysis of the motion. The following post revises the equations slightly to remove mass and only show the motion. The results are worth examining.
Kind regards, Russell
Here are the equations for internal particle motion conjecturing c2 as the single sustaining potential (S in the essay) and removing mass in favor of motion. There is, however, a clear equation calculating mass from the motion below. I prefer S instead of c2 because it gives the singule potential concept, but c2 is used below for clarity.
c2 = (length2/time2) As the sustaining potential, it defines length and time.
Vem = (length/time) The velocity in the e-m plane. (The particle is undefined, but a center position is identified.)
d = (length) The average distance into the e-m plane after the particle develops a roughly circular/elliptical motion.
D = (length) The instantaneous distance and direction vector into the e-m plane. th is the angle.
r = (length) The distance to another particle.
Potential and gravity: The equation for available electromagnetic potential with one other particle nearby: (Vem2 d represents the other particle and is explained below.)
[math]P = c^2 - \frac{V_{em}^2 d}{r}[/math]
Use a derivative to find the gradient representing the acceleration of gravity towards another particle (independent of its own mass/velocity) (length/time2):
[math]A_g = \frac{dP}{dr} = \frac{V_{em}^2 d}{r^2}[/math]
For macro gravity, here is the equation relating internal motion to mass: Mass = Vem2 d / G
The sustaining potential c2 produces the internal motion of all particles. The acceleration into the e-m plane (length/time2):
[math]A_{em} = \frac{(c^2 - V_{em}^2)}{D} [/math]
The acceleration perpendicular to motion (like the Lorentz force): (This expands to exact equations, not shown, depending on the particle type.)
[math]A = \frac{(V_{em} \times V_{mexyz})}{D} [/math]
Now for the re-interpreted electromagnetic Coulomb equation without mass.
Conjecture: The distance into e-m produces electromagnetic potential and the angle into e-m defines how it acts relative to other particles and their potentials and angles. (Electrons and protons have a non-zero average distance in the e direction giving them charge. Replace charge with distance and angle.)
Induced electromagnetic potential of a particle extending away from the particle. (length2/time2)
[math]Pem = \frac{c^2 D}{r} [/math]
The gradient of the potential field. (length/time2)
[math]\frac{dPem}{dr} = \frac{c^2 D}{r^2} [/math]
The acceleration on particle 2 due to electromagnetic potential of particle 1: (length/time2)
[math]A_2 = \frac{\frac{dPem_1}{dr} c^2 D_2}{V_{em_2}^2 d_2} cos(th_2-th_1) =\frac{c^4 D_1 D_2}{r^2 V_{em_2}^2 d_2}cos(th_2-th_1) [/math]
The combined acceleration equation of electromagnetism, the strong force, and gravity -- all without mass: (length/time2)
[math]A_2 = \frac{ \frac{c^4 D_1 D_2}{V_{em_2}^2 d_2}cos(th_2-th_1)-V_{em_1}^2 d_1}{r^2} [/math]
Once again: mass = Vem2 d / G
While these equations are simplified representations, I believe they present a good case for exploring internal particle motion.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
Russell,
First- than you for your very nice comments about my essay. It's nice to share ideas this quickly with people.
Regarding your essay: You bring a very interesting idea to the table! And with regard to your analogy using wind to describe force application - let me say I'm a big fan.
From the time you submitted your essay, have you thought further about how the relation between the QV potential and the Kinetic potential are affected in a relativistic example where the inertia of the particle increases? Might be an interesting follow-up!
Best of luck.
Chris
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your nice comments, and I really appreciate your looking over the equations enough to ask a relevant question about them. Yes, I have thought some about relativistic examples and can give a general idea of one. Accelerating a proton to near light speed is a fascinating example. Does the mass grow and length shorten as suggested by special relativity, or does something else happen? (I am a huge fan of special relativity, by the way, and I think it gives accurate calculations. The QV sustaining potential gives another way to look at it.) Consider equation (1) from the essay that gives the force into the e-m plane.
[math]F_{em} = \frac{m}{r_{em}}(S - V^2) = \frac{m}{r_{em}}(S - V_{em}^2 - V_{xyz}^2)[/math]
It is expected that the force goes to zero when stable, which means S - Vem2 - Vxyz2 = 0. So as the momentum increases (or the kinetic potential Vxyz2 increases), the potential in Vem2 decreases. There may be some limit to how small Vem2 can go. The main idea is there is an upper limit on the kinetic potential Vxyz2.
The overall effect is that it seems the mass increases but the actual mechanism is that S is the maximum QV (sustaining) potential available to the particle. As the particle approaches the speed of c, it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate it and convert its motion to kinetic energy as we see in a particle accelerator.
I hope that describes something for the question you asked. I expect there is much work to be done in correlating these ideas to existing concepts. It is fun to stretch the mind!
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
Good Job Russell. Knew an excellent Essay when I saw one...
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.
Sir,
We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.
"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.
Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.
Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.
Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.
A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.
Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.
In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.
The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.
The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.
Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.
The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.
Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.
In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.
Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".
Regards,
Basudeba.
Hi Dear Russel,
Thanks for your post.
You make relevant points about the mass and the special relativity. What happens indeed, it's as in a BEC also...the secrets of our Universal sphere are incredibles and fascinatings.....
All the best
Steve
Dear Basudeba,
Thank you for the copy of your letter. An interesting dilemma -- how to bring new ideas to the surface, and how to fairly judge them. I give credit to FQXi and Scientific American for allowing all the entrants into the contest and trying to make it fair. It is not perfect as you have pointed out. On the positive side, the contest does let us see new ideas to ponder them. I'm sorry your essay and mine didn't score higher. Observing the number of votes each essay received, it looks like authors were not able to carefully read all the other essays. It seems like a valid new idea needs much work in logical development, correlation with existing data, and testing of its predictions before it becomes convincing and interesting to the larger group. The question is how to get that traction to enable the work to be done. Getting the ideas out there is a nice start, and I'm happy about that.
Thank you again, and I would like to encourage you as well.
Kind regards, Russell
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your comment. I am happy to hear from you because I have enjoyed your comments on other essays.
That is a good idea to look into correlating with BEC experiments. Yes, nature is incredible and fascinating!
Kind regards, Russell
