 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Can we be sure that large electric charge doesn't... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jarek Duda... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Since Einstein we have started treating gravitation and
electromagnetism in completely different way.
There are also simpler ways to make gravitation Lorentz invariant -
for example it can be made by a second set of Maxwell-like equations
for gravity - with mass density instead of charge density and
correspondingly for current density - getting something like Amper's
law for gravitation required for Lorentz invariance. To make it always
attracting, it would be enough to change the sign in formula for
potential
(5th section of http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ).
Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| xxein... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:58 am, Jarek Duda <duda... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Since Einstein we have started treating gravitation and
electromagnetism in completely different way.
There are also simpler ways to make gravitation Lorentz invariant -
for example it can be made by a second set of Maxwell-like equations
for gravity - with mass density instead of charge density and
correspondingly for current density - getting something like Amper's
law for gravitation required for Lorentz invariance. To make it always
attracting, it would be enough to change the sign in formula for
potential
(5th section ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724).
Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime?
[/quote]
xxein: Because that's the way we are taught to think with a false
logic. When a logic is not completely correct, it leads one to think
on the tangent of a teaching rather than the logical path.
I'm sure you know the difference between qualitative and
quantitative. The former is valued as relational while the latter is
more absolute (as far as we can discern). There is a subtle and
distinct difference. And don't say what is required. You are only
exposing a belief you seem to want to rail.
The only difference between gravity and electromagnetism is the
scale. We give each their own brand of physics only because we can do
the math of Lorentz/SR on one page and it takes 1000 pages to do GR.
There is a difference of how we construct our understanding of each.
Now why is that? It's fairly simple. A flat space allows for
shortcuts in math that hide the true physic. What is NOT a flat
space? We make conjectures of that. All false so far in the
literature of physics. Subsequently, we have to bend, fold and
mutilate to attempt to reconcile one to the other. There is no clear
and definite language between them. It has to be remodified in the
meaning for every math expression of SR to GR.
So far, the original beliefs (SR to GR) have stood their ground with
these remodifications but they are qualitatively different, as you
said. One requires an additional variable. But what is that
variable? It's surely not magic.
QT's miss it too. There's no description of gravity there. Strings
just invent a gravity no better than SRT to GRT. So? Are we dead in
the water? No. We just have to think better. We have to re-analyse
our knowledge of the measurements we make to come up with a more
comprehensive theory instead of piecing bits of old dogma together.
I've done some of this with very good results. It doesn't defy a
single measurement that we have made. It just reinterpts the physics
we have made of those measurements. There's nothing in it that can be
judged as irrational or more spooky than we already have. It even
takes some of the spookiness and unrecognized spookiness out of it.
I'm not the greatest or last physicist, nor do I wish to be. I only
wish for a more complete understanding of the physic. I'm past the
present version of physics.
Before you jump down my throat, I am not a Phd. Does that preclude a
knowledge or simply state that I don't have a Phd? As any Phd knows,
you graduate in knowledge from 1000 yr-old stuff to 100 to 10 to 1 and
then you have to write a thesis. If it were a copy of only what you
were taught, it would not be accepted. It has to be a reasonable
extension of what you were taught. What is reasonable to what you
were taught? If it isn't, do you get a Phd anyway? Not unless you
are able to show and prove to the final teachers that your knowledge
makes that reasonable extension or more sense than their's.
But do they recognise that your sense (different from their sense) is
more sense? Does that make them feel inadequate or do they just
dismiss it using their own belief? Ego, tenure? It is surely shown
in earlier classes.
Nonetheless, should we learn more or just believe the adequate? Don't
stop investigating the physic. There is still 95+% we don't really
understand yet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3507
|
On Nov 5, 10:58 pm, Jarek Duda <duda... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Since Einstein we have started treating gravitation and
electromagnetism in completely different way.
There are also simpler ways to make gravitation Lorentz invariant -
for example it can be made by a second set of Maxwell-like equations
for gravity - with mass density instead of charge density and
correspondingly for current density - getting something like Amper's
law for gravitation required for Lorentz invariance. To make it always
attracting, it would be enough to change the sign in formula for
potential
(5th section ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724).
Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime?
[/quote]
Matter and light have electric energy. Magnetism aether is energyless
like the space curve.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jarek Duda... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]The only difference between gravity and electromagnetism is the
scale.
The difference is a bit larger:[/quote]
- gravity is always attracting, what can be done by changing sign in
e.g. potential formula,
- charge, spins are integer multiplicities of some physical constants,
while particle masses are much more various.
These quantified nature of electromagnetic properties and behavior of
quantum phase around spin axis suggest that they are made by
topological restrictions, while mass is kind of additional deformation
which has to accompany them like in my paper.
Introducing additional concept: intrinsic curvature governed by
equations chosen by aesthetic reasons is kind of short way of handling
problems. Especially that it brings huge amount of silenced
inconvenient questions: is our spacetime infinitely thin surface
embedded somewhere? why they don't interact with each other? what
about solutions like wormholes it allows?
Many physicists believe in grand unification theory - before that we
should deeply understand assumed nowadays deep qualitative difference
between EM and gravity.
This discussion developed a bit here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4c9918f700d3f207# |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darwin123... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:58 am, Jarek Duda <duda... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime?
The differences between gravity and electromagnetic forces have to[/quote]
do with equivalence. The gravitational mass is exactly equivalent to
the inertial mass. Because of this equivalence between gravitational
and inertial mass, systems have to be covariantly invariant rather
than Lorentz invariant.
The electrical charge is not equivalent to the inertial mass.
The equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass
causes minimal problems in Galilean invariant systems. In systems
which are almost entirely Newtonian, there is no real complication
caused by the equivalence. In fact, there is simplification. The mass
in a gravitational orbit often cancels out. If you divided the
inertial mass by the gravitational mass, you get 1. Galilean
invariance is not ruined by the equivalence of gravitational and
inertial mass.
In contrast, suppose we have a system that satisfies Lorentz
invariance at distances far from large masses. Basically, a system
that obeys special relativity. The equivalence principle ruins the
Lorentz invariance close to the large mass. An object that is held
still in a strong gravitational field has to be object to a system
that is undergoing large acceleration. Large accelerations normally
lead to large relative velocities. Large velocities normally lead to
time dilation and length contraction. So a large gravitational field
can lead to effects analogous to the time dilation and length
contraction in special relativity.
Notice that this ruins Lorentz invariance near large masses.
General relativity is based on another type of invariance called
covariance. Covariance is the modification on Lorentz invariance
caused by a gravitational field.
It is true that if the gravitational field satified the analogs
to Maxwells equation, then it would be Lorentz invariant. However,
gravitational fields can't be Lorentz invariant due to the law of
equivalence. They are covariant. Lorentz invariance is a limiting case
of covariance where the gravitational field is weak.
General relativity is the physics of covariance. Special
relativity is the physics of Lorentz invariance. The law of
equivalence turns special relativity into general relativity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3507
|
On Nov 5, 10:58 pm, Jarek Duda <duda... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Since Einstein we have started treating gravitation and
electromagnetism in completely different way.
There are also simpler ways to make gravitation Lorentz invariant -
for example it can be made by a second set of Maxwell-like equations
for gravity - with mass density instead of charge density and
correspondingly for current density - getting something like Amper's
law for gravitation required for Lorentz invariance. To make it always
attracting, it would be enough to change the sign in formula for
potential
(5th section ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724).
Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime?
[/quote]
I think it is clear that gravity is the only force with its own time.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:14 am
|
|