O.K. Joe, I ran through the wiki link quickly. I will have to go back read again later. In the case of a single particle I can see how its angular momentum could increase its inertial resistance to motion which is not in a line with its angular momentum. This would be very much like a subatomic gyroscope. In the case of particles I can see some potential of a kinetic mechanism associated with its angular momentum which could affect its inertial resistance. Can it be assumed that a charged sphere when compared with an uncharged sphere has more particles or atoms similarly alined? In magnetic metals such an alinement at an atomic scale exists. If so I can see a kinetic connection between an increase in inertia associated with an electromagnetic component. I would not call it an increase in mass as that reasoning becomes circular to some extent. A gyroscope does not increase its mass when spinning, yet its inertia does change. Inertia and mass are very difficult terms, they both are used or misused in ways that confuse clear definition.
Oh certainly, kinetic energy which increases by the speed of the system increases the intrinsic energy and so increases mass, and so must overall locally effect the inertia in respect to the WEP. Well, a classical electron, meaning it has a classical radius (which seems to be a preferred model often), states that there are no composite particles which makes it. It is fundamental. As for a gyroscope, I am not entirely certain. Is that because it is a ficticious force? You can teach me this Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What I have done is see gravitational charge \(\sqrt{GM}\) in terms of energy \(\chi = \sqrt{E_0 \frac{G}{c^2}}\). You can expand the understanding of rest mass to apply to the total energy of a system, where the inertial energy is: \(\sqrt{(Mc^2 + M \phi)\) Einstein already speculated that in his paper on the inertia of energy, that inertia of course was related to the energy of the system. Could understanding gravitational charge in terms of energy be helpful for the quantization aspect of understanding the origins of inertia?
Joe Green: Could you please compare your thread with the one I've just begun? (I believe that yours (sort of) supports mine, but I much prefer the humiliation of correction to the ignominy of unknowingly teaching falsehood.)
I had a look. I can't compare too much. I believe your thread tackles issues which isn't directly comparable to quantization.
That's the whole problem. String theory isn't amenable to experimental validation, so I guess I'm just back to square one on this point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks, anyways!
If you assume an object with only a linear motion, moving in a straight line, while its velocity influences its inertial resistance to a change in motion, as in any force acting to accelerate or decelerate it, in this situation its inertia is changed when compared to the same object at rest. However, if its motion has no component other than moving in that straight line, the energy required to change its vector, say 90 degrees to its linear motion is unchanged. Its inertia is affected by its velocity only in the direction of motion. Its mass never changes, just its inertia relative to its existing motion. This is a macrocosmic not quantum view. What is happening at the quantum level is not observable from this stand point. It gets very difficult when talking about QM effects and mechanics as they apply to the macrocosmic scale of ordinary matter and everyday experience. QM should reduce (for want of a better term) at macrocosmic scales to consistency with everyday experience and observation. I take that as meaning that at the quantum level uncertainty is a factor that is not present at the macroscopic scale. We cannot say what an individual electron is doing at any specific time or place. We can say what electrons are doing generally in a complex substance of everyday experience. The atoms and electrons in magnetized iron are more uniformly alined than in unmagnetized iron. I am not sure if it is the fictitious force, i.e. centrifugal force involved, or the angular momentum itself. I tend toward angular momentum. Macroscopically if you spin an object at 90 degrees to it linear velocity, it will resist any change to its linear line of travel that also affects it axis of rotation, to a greater degree than the same object with no spin. This works with bullets and is proposed for at least one of the private space flight rocket boosters (to replace the need for complex gyroscope and thruster control). A gyroscope works in the same way. When spun up to sufficient angular momentum it will always attempt to maintain a constant spacial orientation relative to its axis of angular momentum. (I know that was said awkwardly.) you can move it freely in line with, or even at a 90 degree angle to, its axis of rotation. Any attempt to move it such that you change the orientation in space of its axis of rotation requires a greater effort. Its inertia is greater for any motion that involves a change in the orientation of it rotation axis. It would seem that this would also hold true for any particle having mass and angular momentum. Only in as much as the angular momentum affects a particle's magnetic moment would the EM state of the particle be connected to this effect. In either case I don't see this as an increase in mass, as much as an increase in inertia unrelated, at least directly unrelated, to mass. A gyroscope's mass is not increased by its angular momentum and yet its inertial resistance to change is definitely altered, relative to its axis of rotation. Since in most everyday materials the atoms and particles are not general arranged uniformly relative to the individual angular momentums of their component parts, atomic and sub atomic, the material as a whole should exhibit an inertia that is nonspecific to direction. However, could it be that the angular momentum of subatomic particles, are at least a contributor to the particle's inertia and mass? I still see EM as a higher level emergent phenomena/force(s) and only indirectly involved in inertia and mass. EM mass appears to me to be a somewhat archaic concept. Pleas forgive my rambling, this is really a off the cuff discussion of what comes to mind.
Precisely, hence me asking him to do more than remedial mathematics, the stuff high schoolers can do. He thinks if he throws in high level buzzwords people won't notice he's doing nothing viable at all. Quite why he thinks no one can tell I don't know. He must enjoy pissing his life away.
What are you talking about? A very delusional perspective, from one who questions my motives, when papers I assign are not read. You seem to have a PhD in physics, yet your attentive awareness seems to be lacking somewhat, considering you have got wrong quite a few things since the beginning of your rambling. The first comes to mind, where you think I took \(M \phi\) as an equation. Address me like an adult, and you shall be treated as such.
Some of your queeries are quite in depth... may I say for now... that the centrifugal force is a ficticious, false force. This applies to a stationary system though.
Inertia is of course, the resistance of a change in velocity. Question is, since absolute rest cannot be changed, then what is a particle at rest, to one which resists the motion of an external force? Interestingly, a particle is constantly inertial, so long as it has a mass. Changes in force describe the inertial quantities very little - especially for particles which cannot be at rest anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't know whether to agree or not... all I can say is that mass is quantifiably different to an object moving relative to a stationary object. Objects with velocity greater than another object, present a mass which seems to have increased. I may direct you to the Oh-My-God particle? Macrocosmic, or as I prefer, Macroscopic systems are not fundamental when you investigate the laws which govern geometrogenesis. Geometrical phenomena are in fact non-fundamental. Objects which exist in the geometrical world seem void when you consider the quantized world. Agree. It is very difficult to reconcile the two different worlds. Uncertainty involves also the mass of an object to its radius; this bizarre quantum world is too afray with incremental observations which hold little accuracy at the smallest quantities. I didn't know this. i spoke about this previously, but I will say again Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The centrifugal force is ficticious. But is it ficticious? I will investigate it for myself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What does? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! yes there is a relationship between angular momentum and the magnetic moment - I don't know if the two should naturally invite each other. Yes. Magnetic moments are not a prerequisit of mass. Or atleast, the true definition of mass should not. Maybe. In fact, possibly, but what about zero spin particles, as described by the Klein Gorden Equation... mind you, we haven't observed any spin zero particles, have we? Emergent physics is still very cloudy for me. I still don't understand how something is emergent and not a mechanical phenomenon? Not at all.
I think inertia has some intrinsic relationship to the uncertainty principle. The fact particles are never actually at rest, begs the question what force is at work for particles with a mass. Of course, the uncertainty principle cannot be applied physically to particles which can never be at rest. The UP holds an interesting relationship, which I am mathematically trying to derive right now.
Assign? You managed to get that from this thread? You said (and I quote) "As always, the potential part of the equation \(M\phi\) always has the interesting dynamics.". Your replies are evasive and vapid, when they aren't wrong. I commented your equations were basic and you replied "I don't know many 13 year olds who can talk about quantum mechanics, let alone know about potentials and whatnot.". Anyone familiar with this level of physics would know what I meant. You talk about Lie algebras, gauge theory, quantisation but all the equations you give are just ratios and roots. You haven't done anything remotely close to the level of mathematics used in this sort of theoretical physics. You say a 13 year old couldn't talk about quantum mechanics but you haven't done anything which would qualify as actual quantum mechanics. Nothing you'd said shows any understanding, a 13 year old could learn certain words and parrot certain things by reading Wikipedia. You've gotten numerous things wrong and then you'd have to back track as being 'too vague'. I asked you to explain why \(\sqrt{GM}\) is a quantised charge, asking you to show the details, to give you an opportunity to show you do know this stuff. You just gave the evasive response to read the papers and said "I linked my sources. Follow them through, and you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.". I know what quantisation is, I know what charges are, I know how they arise, I'm wanting to see if you do. For instance, you replied "Oscillations away from the ground state in the potential is the presence of a mass.". Why don't you give an indepth elaboration of that in your own words, so we can all see you understand it. I know precisely what is being referred to and I know the level of detail it's covered during lecture courses which also cover symmetry breakings, Lie algebra, gauge theory etc because I've sat them. You claim to know this stuff, put your maths where your mouth is. You have all the hallmarks of someone who knows a tiny bit more than a complete layperson but who is trying to present it as so much more. Your last post is evidence of that : This is complete nonsense and your last sentence illustrates your view of yourself does not square with reality. Anyone familiar, on a working level, with the UP knows it can be applied to particles with mass and ones which aren't at rest. In fact the UP says a particle cannot be observed to be at rest else you'd know it's position and momentum perfectly. If you're currently deriving something to do with the UP then let's see it. Show every bit of workings. Take your time to type it out properly because any errors, conceptual or quantitative will be taken as a sign you don't understand this stuff. You clearly want to be taken seriously but you don't seem to want to stand up to any scrutiny. You're claiming to be familiar with concepts typically covered at Masters level in physics courses, yet you're also displaying a poor grasp of concepts taken as common knowledge on said courses and not a single bit of mathematics you've done is beyond the ability of a competent teenager to understand. You name drop Lie algebras but you haven't done anything with them, despite them being a critical component in quantisation. You talk about dynamical fields and potentials relating to mass but you haven't even given an expression with time in it. You couldn't even spell Poincare properly. Of course your biggest mistake was picking the same sort of equations you've previously considered using previous accounts. You have a thing for inertial mass and trivial mathematics. How much longer you going to keep doing this Reiku? Do you think trying to hone your ability to spout BS on forums is going to serve you well in getting a job?
How intrusive you are, sir, with your superfluous idea's on the poster you so insidiously works on... You sir, are bored to high heaven... some of your posts, no matter who you think it is, does no justice to a scientific system, but remedial outbursts seems to be your forte, no? Of course not. Your delusions seem to be more than forthcoming, than your fabrication concerning my contentions on the potential. and? As basic as the equations are, which I am readily to admit, your beliefs a 13 year old could understand them, are far from realistic ... I leave that to the audience. I said, and how many times should one tell? The papers will tell you what you want to hear. You ask very basic questions, which an ape could understand, given the right directionality. Elaborate what? Do you deny the mass term is not part of straying from the ground state, that oscillationary-physics are required to understand the origin of symmetry-breaking? You know nothing of me, apart from 40-odd posts lol --- You are probably a better psychologist in theory than someone who can apply actual logic. What is? The fact I said something at rest is not appliable to something at relativistic speeds, or the other part... god knows what??? How? Tell me how you can increase the speed of let's say a photon, when a photon's speed is constant? My teaching told me that a particles speed is uncertain, when you apply the logic it's speed is increased from the origin of the observable? I will show you it, once I derive it. As you should know, work is not finished, until the heart dictated it so. Of course, I am well adversed in many area's of physics. It seems, as soon as someone says they know something, you tend to prove them wrong, or atleast try many occasions. Your errors in this thread are too vivid to discount. Inertial mathematics, is not trivial. You have a very high ego... does anyone actually want to learn physics from you? Are you kind enough to be neutral enough, even, to let them understand the basics without being condescending?
Here are a few obvious observations about charge and gravity, that are less obvious than they should be. First, in our universe, positive charge tends to associated with the highest mass particles (protons/nucleus). These higher mass particles, in turn, are responsible for the majority of mass/gravity of the universe. Although positive electrons and negative protons do exist, our universe favors positive charge associating with the larger mass to get the proton. The question becomes, is mass/gravity closer to postive charge than to negative charge? Equal and opposite, when it comes to charge, may also be true of their association to mass. This is based on the preponderance of hard data and not the hypothetical bias of random traditions.
Positive and negative charges can be understood from the dirac equation for fermions. In fact, particles can oscillate between charges, unless there is some mathematical factor which favours a charge over another... you may find this in a Yukawa Coupling. The math which follows this is very interesting, which will not allow a negative particle to sporadically change into a positive charge.
EM charge, as I understand my own theory, cannot, and this includes some kind of gravitational charge, to every particle in the universe. Like a DNA strand, the information from the most fundamental particle in the universe, will lead to a birth of new particles, the particles we are so attuned to measure. At one point in this universe, we should surely be able to measure, the first inertial strand of DNA... Not biological sense, but a fundamental sense. There should be a particle which gives birth to all fields... I do believe Motz calculated this and called this as a Uniton.
I will tell you all something, let me make it as brief as I can: A) Particles are never at rest B) There is an upper limit of velocity which does not apply to masses C) Those which have a mass, are not particles which have the speed of light D) Those which have a mass can only be logically attributed to the UP The uncertainty principle will only allow understanding of it's inequality concerning particles which are at near rest. There is no point applying this principle to particles which have been favourably called Luxons. These speedy particles, cannot be applied to a certain point in space, because they experience no time. Relativity immediately admits that particles which travel at the speed of light, have no inertia... How can they if they are to permit the rulebook of the WEP?
