Subject: Re: determinism vs non-determinism, was: Really random? (now back on original topic)
From: AIR1@ping.be (Stephan Verbeeck)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 19:52:22 GMT
Peter Harrison wrote me:
>after I wrote:
>>Uncertainty in QM does not exist (provoking a deterministic universe).
>>Each particle that escapes from an interaction with other particles
>>(an interaction being a collision with incoming and leaving particles
>>each with their own type, mass, speed, direction, frequency/spin,
>>energy, etc...) can not disappear into nothingness (never interact
>>again) because of the law of conservation of energy.
>
>Your logic escapes me.
I expected as much. But you did try :-)
>A particle that flys off never to interact again
>does not violate the conservation of energy. The particles mass and kinetic
>energy may never vary again, but that does not mean that energy is lost from
>the system.
Well there are other restrictions. It hast to do with "exist". 2000
years ago people couldn't grasp the concept ZERO. There was no way to
write it. Why write a number down if you have nothing was the popular
opinion? Telling those guys that minus zero is then same as plus zero
would only have confused them. Today people have the same
difficulties with the concept infinite. Telling someone today that
minus infinite is the same as plus infinite simply causes confusion
and people don't grasp the concept. But just look at how the value of
the tangent function behaves for changing angles and it will become
clear to you (I hope). Dimensions as distance and time are "closed"
but that you can't prove that is precisely the basic property of
infinite that makes it what it is. If you would have particles that
never interacted again then you couldn't reach a closed-time universe.
In fact it is this maze of interactions that is the entire universe
itself and not space or time which are even less then the illusion of
motion. In fact nothing moves in our universe. That can't be
different since the entire universe is still void and (hold on to
something) just as well exists and don't exist at the same time. The
maze of interactions is just the domain of infinite solutions to the
universal global formula.
>>[discussion about the folow on effects from above concept]
>
>Can you describe a model, ie describe a matrix/manifold/array, and the
>rules/laws to process it with? It doesn't have to predict much, it just has
>to be consistant with known features of the universe (ie apparently
>continuous space annd time, yet different at small and large scales).
That is not so difficult but I prefer that you try it for yourself.
Only that way you will understand. First of all forget that
3dimensional array concept. Remember the famous two slit experiment
used to demonstrate uncertainty? Well the particles goes trough BOTH
slits following ONE trajectory. Why and how? Well a particle path is
the domain of solutions which bring it from its creation-point to its
termination-point. This is not a single (curved) line but it self a
collection of infinite of such lines. In other words the concept of
nice stable 3D space is an illusion. Only the interactions have fixed
X-Y-Z coordinates the particle paths are more moving "clouds" or
presents. That is what gives it its wave-like properties. (got it?)
The confusing thing is that this cloud does NOT have to stay in one
piece. Do you know what a gravitational lens is? Well a photon can
pas right AND left of a star at the same time. Surprising news isn't
it? The same happens in the famous two slit experiment. Both the
path through the right-slit and the path through the left slit are
valid solutions to the domain of single paths that constitute the
particle-path and so you still have an intact interference pattern.
Even for SINGLE individual particles. That wasn't to difficult was
it?
Do I get the nobel price now or more insults an laughter as usual? I
can't understand why so many of you scientists for some many decades
failed to recognize this SIMPLE fact that is so evident. WHY???
But I guess you failed to understand that you don't have to ask me for
formulas. They already have been found. It is just that they are
used for the moment without that one has a clue where they come from.
Don't forget that you still need information about future events to
get rid of the "uncertainty" in QM. If you fail to see why then give
me some feedback because in that case you have overlooked the most
basic information in this posting.
Greetings and an illuminated 1997 to all.
---------------
Sint-Annastraat 19
3550 Heusden-Zolder (Belgium)
Tel: (0032)11/53.37.09
---------
Subject: Re: Frequency-Space paradox?
From: "Robert. Fung"
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 14:58:39 -0500
Craig DeForest wrote:
>Robert. Fung wrote:
>> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <32C82A1A.2421@citicorp.com>, "Robert. Fung"
>> > > what decides how these are paired ? Certain pairs
>> > > don't seem to occur, like frequency and momentum.
>> >
>> > As Peter wrote, the pairing arises naturally once you've a
>> > Langrangian formulation. For any generalized coordinate q, the
>> > conjugate "momentum" is given by:
>> > p = dL/d(q_dot)
>> > where q_dot = dq/dt and the derivatives in the formula for p are
>> > partial derivatives.
>> It seems there should be a more fundemental reason.
>There is. The reason is a very beautiful mathematical theorem called
>"Noether's Theorem" (by Emma Noether, a late-19th-century
>mathematician who would undoubtedly be more famous if she weren't
>distressingly female for her era). Noether's Theorem links
>fundamental symmetries with conservation laws. In general, under
>the Lagrangian classical mechanical formulation, Noether proved
>that symmetry under a particular 'q' of a system results in
>conservation of the associated 'p' (as defined by meron above).
>Because of the definition of the 'p's, and the fact that the
>Lagrangian carries units of energy, you can immediately read off
>that a given 'q' and its conjugate 'p' always multiply to units of
>action (energy times time), the same units as Planck's constant.
>There's a relevant article in the "Feynman Lectures" that describes
>this very notion. Check out articles I-52 and II-19 from those
>books.
>It turns out, of course, that all these conjugate pairs are deeply
>tied up in the quantum mechanical nature of our Universe: one way
>to re-invent quantum mechanics is to describe the world classically
>(say, in the Lagrangian formalism), then spuriously introduce
>non-commutativity into some of the equations. If you (for no
>good reason :-) decide that qp =/= pq for some variables q and
>their conjugate momenta p, all of quantum mechanics drops out of
>the Lagrangian formalism like a free lunch from a brown paper bag.
I remember Noether from algebraic topology or some other hideously
abstract math. I'll have to look this up in addition to some points from
Mati's description of the Lagrangian.
But there is overlap here also isn't there ? Otherwise you wouldn't
be able to map the quantum mechanical relations onto the wave-theory
ones or the classical velocity v=dx/dt onto the wave-group velocity
v=df/dk.
This seems to suggest there is something more fundemental lurking
underneath. And indeed when I try to research this, I often times
get plunged abruptly into Banach spaces, or otherwise
shewed away from sufficient detail, or the author/s might dangle
some description of orthogonal eigenfunctions or dual bases or conjugate
spaces V* or... but the general gut feeling I get is that some
very basic definitions are side-stepped and some very general
ideas missing.
I realize that's too vague a comment to deserve a response and
that I have to put in as much work to research the question
as the answer but your inputs have given me a somewhat better
orientation.
Catch o the Day
Noether ---------------------------------------------
bio http://www.scottlan.edu/lriddle/women/noether.htm
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Noether_Emmy.html
.ps http://zippy.ph.utexas.edu/~rcorrado/qft/qft.html
http://www.ams.org/publications/notices/199605/knapp-2.html
http://ntdwwaab.compuserve.com/homepages/phil_gibbs/symmetry.htm
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html
http://cwsing.phys.cwru.edu/phys/tophys/grad/grad_cour.html
http://registrar.mit.edu/@6078796.18240/catalog/m8b.html
http://amath-www.colorado.edu/appm/student/deconinc/hamilton.html
http://zippy.ph.utexas.edu/~rcorrado/qft/qft.html
less serious
http://www.spin.it/spin-engl/whatis.html
http://www.maths.soton.ac.uk/postgraduate/MSc/amtp/homepage.html
http://www.univie.ac.at/cognition/research.htm
Subject: Re: Potential Energy
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 19:03:04 GMT
Allen Meisner (odessey2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: What exactly is potential energy?
Gravitational potential energy is the kinetic energy
that would develop if an object were to fall from the specified
position to the surface of a gravitator body, in other words,
it is bookkeeping, or predictive bookkeeping.
: I ask this because I am confused
: about something. If you have two earth sized bodies at absolute rest,
: what constrains the bodies to follow the gravitational geodesics? In
: other words, why should the bodies begin moving for no reason.
Absolute rest does not exist, and even eith gravity,
the centers of mass do not experience acceleration, they
are always in inertial motion.
But, be assured that something moves due to gravity,
my opinion can be found at http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
Binary stars (a two star system) is like what you
are asking about, but they have to be orbiting, else they
collide.
: Obviously, you can't use gravity to explain gravity. Would solving for
: the gravitational potential, Gm/r, in the equation for general
: relativity, provide any insights?
All formulas in celestial mechanics, where two
massive bodies are involved have M1 + M2 in them, because
both contribute substantially to the gravitational attraction,
and neither can be ignored.
Formulas that have Gm or GMm specifically ignore
the contribution of the smaller body to the gravitational
attraction.
Newtonian gravitation works pretty good, using
the same "force" to cause both bodies to accelerate toward
each other. That is why they say Newtonian gravitation
is like a rubber band stretched between the two bodies,
it causes them both to appear to move.
: Something must change when you
: increase the potential by moving the bodies farther apart.
Nothing changes except position, and if you move
them far enough apart, the potential energy vanishes in
any realistic situation, gravitational potential energy
is what will develop during the fall from the stated
position.
: There
: therefore must be something that is constraining the body to move to a
: lower potential. IOW, something must decrease when the body moves to
: the lower potential, and this decrease constrains the body to move-or,
: counterintuitively, is something increasing? What is this something?
: Could someone enlighten me?
: Edward Meisner
If a body falls from a stated position, the relative
kinetic energy increases in the same amount that the potential
energy decreases.
And kinetic energy is bookkeeping also, it is simply
the energy of bringing the falling body to rest on the surface,
which will only be realized in the friction and heat of the
resulting mass, if both bodies are the same size, their
centers of mass can be considered not to move in the
collision.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Who's Who of American Inventors Fourth Edition 1996-1997
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
Subject: Re: What MEDIUM does LIGHT REQUIRE?
From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter)
Date: 4 Jan 1997 00:42:59 GMT
One bodies mass,
is another bodies medium.
----------
The interaction between two bodies is symmetrical.
No body has a prefered status.
For example, the Earth does NOT rotate about the Sun.
The Earth and the Sun interact about a common point,
in a common time.
The common time is called the natural period,
and the "common point" is where the system is
located. For example, the "common point",
in an electron-proton interaction,
is where the resulting hydrogen atom is located.
The "common time" in the case of the hydrogen atom
is ( 2 / ( Rydberg's constant * C ))
------------
The interaction between two bodies
can be defined by a pair of Kepler's equations.
mass(A) * G = distance(B)^3
-------------
time(common)^2
mass(B) * G = distance(A)^3
-------------
time(common)^2
The "G" is simply a constant that sets the
units of mass, after the units of time and distance
have been set. The units of time are set by the
selection of a reference cycle, and the units of
distance are set by the selection of the value
of the universal distance per time constant "C".
Note that the medium ( Time and distance )
of body(B) is a function of the mass
of body(A), and vice versa.
---------------
If we solve both of the equations
above for 1 / time(common)^2 we get:
1 mass(A) * G mass(B) * G
-------------- = ------------- = -------------
time(common)^2 distance(B)^3 distance(A)^3
which gives us some insight into
the del operator, Laplaces operator
which is del^2, and the wave function.
--------
Note that if we express the distance between
the center of each body, and the center of the
system as interaction times, we get:
1 mass(A) * G mass(B) * G
-------------- = --------------- = ---------------
time(common)^2 C^3 * time(B)^3 C^3 * time(A)^3
This make it obvious that mass * G / C^3 has the
dimensions of time and that G / C^3 must be a
universal time per mass constant,
so we can restate the equations as:
1 time(mass(A)) time(mass(B))
-------------- = --------------- = ---------------
time(common)^2 time(B)^3 time(A)^3
which expresses time, space and mass in the
same, and most precise and sensible units ( time ).
Ultimately, even time(common), time(A), and time(B)
must be expressed as numeric counts using some outsid
cycle as a reference, against an ASSUMED stable
background, to determine when a cycle, or event
has occured.
In other words, the observable universe
consists of periods, cause/effect events, a
background reference and a reference cycle.
No more, no less.
---------
For more details on this, and for explanations
of how "pi" and "e" fit into all this,
visit my Web site.
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Subject: Particles&Waves;
From: dgd692@leonard.anu.edu.au (Diana Geraldine Diamond)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 02:39:40 GMT
Particles and Waves; Wholes and their Aspects.
----------------------------------------------
(Copyright (C) 1996 Chris Lofting)
It has been often pointed out that in quantum mechanics a particle does
not exist until you 'look' at it. I hope the following helps in resolving
this apparent paradoxical concept.
The basic axiom here is that the brain processes information in the form
of wholes and their aspects. (for neurological refs please email me.
Sperry's work helped to demonstrate the apparent hemisphere-oriented
biases to whole/aspect functioning, with later work showing more of a
continuum than the discrete left/right-ness that Sperry observed, but this
could result from the method of analysis - see below).
Aspects have three basic forms, static, dynamic, and removable. The latter
are called parts and can be treated as wholes but at a different level of
analysis. This introduces the concept of wholes having hierarchical
structure.
Overall, we state that that which is not interpreted as a whole is
interpreted as an aspect.
In the mind, when we explicitly attend to a whole, the whole is detected
to be an object, something with substance. Thus, in Physics, the placing
of a detector close to a hole through which an electron is supposed to
pass will detect exactly that - an apparantly solid object passing through
the hole.
The moment we try to observe statistically we move from a narrow angle of
concentration to a wide diffuse angle (mentally we go from a 'what is'
state to a 'what could be' state). This act changes the level of analysis
from that of a whole to the analysis of many wholes that are now aspects
of a greater whole - the group and the period of observation; this is
often missed and thus the apparent whole we were detecting is now
aspectual and appears to have 'wave' characteristics. Thus all information
is more in aspectual form (harmonics) rather than whole form.
In Physics, the accumulation of data on a photographic plate beyond the
storing of the first bit of information (the first electron - object)
leads to an aspectual mapping (wave harmonics). In Psychology, the
formation of typologies (and thus moving beyond the individual) also leads
to aspectual mapping in the context of a greate whole - the Society.
In Physics, the use of down-converters in light-based experiements is
intended to take a whole and try to 'cut' it (thus a photon of energy X
becomes two photons of energy X/2) What you get out of it are the
aspectual characteristics - waves and their interferences within the
initial context of the pre-converted single photon (whole). (For the EPR
experiment, note the emphasis on correlation, where the two start as
one(whole) and are then split).
This is also the case in single-slit, double-slit, and polarization
experiments. The moment you try to cut a whole you drop an analytical
level. If you insist on treating this level as within the context of the
whole than all you will perceive is aspectual information. Only when you
also drop the context to the same level do you perceive 'wholes' again.
Text and context are tied. To change levels with one without the other
leads to aspectual data only since, to the brain, that is what you are
after, holding the original context but changing levels gives you all new
information but within the original context set in a different level.
The roots of our senses are primarily audition and vision. It is proposed
that these have been abstracted at higher levels into aspectual bias (the
sub-tones of audition, the colour of vision - both termed 'harmonics') and
whole bias (the octave (audition) and the object (visual)) Thus the
overall bias to one:many relationships; a relationship that is distinctly
hierarchic in form.
When something is not explicitly observed/heard it becomes an aspect of a
higher whole (background). In quantum mechanics all particles etc are
aspects of the universe and thus can be treated as if harmonics (aspects)
of the octave (whole). As we 'zoom' in so we cross hierarchic boundaries
(as revealed by the integer coeffeciant) and deal with 'lesser' wholes and
their aspects. This is 'fractal' behaviour; it's wholes and their aspects
all the way down.
The brain of the infant is a raw but sensory-integrated whole. Exposure to
the environment leads to degrees of sensory differentiation and the
development of abstract metaphors often biased to a sense. Thus much of the
success of hard Science is based on a wave-analysis approach rooted in the
audition system with it's basic symbolism of wholes and their aspects as
captured by the metaphor we call Mathematics (strong serial bias). The
vision-rooted part is in the concept of a whole (parallel bias).
Since our detection equipment are extensions of our senses, so the above
properties are (unconsciously) built-in to the equipment.
In quantum mechanics the crossing of a boundary is captured by the
detection of integer-controlled 'jumps'. Thus in the context of an atom,
the electrons are treated as aspects of the whole and thus have specific
'levels' when observed within the overall hierarchic format of the atom
(in hierarchy, everything has it's place). Outside of the atom electrons
take-on the form of wholes and the energy 'jumps' are not observed. All of
these observations are made by our senses or by tools designed to extend
them.
The interaction of aspects and wholes is captured by the use of dichotomy
in the way we make maps. This method is strongly statistical in that for a
map to be understood by more than just the originator, a degree of
concensus is required. Each dichotomy adds a level of 'meaning' and each
dichotomy is based on extremes such that the variations in personal
methods of interpretation still lead to the single piece of 'factual'
information. The brain works this way in making maps of reality - it
creates specific metaphors to deal with the various types of wholes and
their aspects.
Thus the apparent wave/particle nature of things is 'false' (even in a
strictly mathematical sense), it is the method of analysis that leads to
the apparant paradoxes where the context is held constant and we attempt
to change textual levels. This does NOT imply that the wave/particle
models are 'useless' - they have been highly successful but they do not
state what is 'out there', only how 'in here' perceives what is 'out
there'.
The hierarchic structure of our brain leads to the 'manifestation' of
processing information as wholes(one)/aspects(many). *ALL* information
acquired will be semantically within the context of wholes/aspects and
will lead to specific emotive responses that enable the forming of
analogies across different disciplines purely because of the whole/aspect
dichotomy.
(for details on the character of dichotomy see my "The sense of dichotomy")
It is through the holding of the context of a whole and analysis of the
aspects (level change) that leads to emergence and creativity. But often
when contextually viewed at the 'correct' level the apparent complexity is
simplified (As seen in the increasing number of dimensions needed to get a
TOE, with concepts like String theory oscillating between 10 and 26
dimensions).
Science is metaphor. It is extremely good in that it's symbolism is more
universal (wide concensus) but it's maps are founded on our brain's way of
dealing with reality. Our brain uses dichotomy to create subject-specific
metaphors enabling the grouping as well as differentiation of wholes and
their aspects. By understanding this we can be more wary of our confusing
map with territory and with confusing the properties of the methods of
analysis with the properties of the objects under analysis.
Chris Lofting c/o Diana.Diamond@anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: JCS: Maxwell and microtubules
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 17:30:25 -0800
Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> Jack Sarfatti:
> ...
> >
> >The axiom linking the physics to inner felt consciousness is that the
> >Bose-Einstein condensate is represented by a system point in classical
> >configuration space that moves through a "mindscape" of basins of
> >attraction set up by the giant quantum wavefunction of that condensate.
> >Each basin encodes a possible experience or quale. The momentary capture
> >of the system point in a given basin results in the inner
> >felt-experience of that quale.
>
> OK, thanks, that will do. Let me suggest some problems with this idea,
> concerning the adequacy of a configuration space as a way to describe
> experience. Consider for example an experience with some nontrivial
> propositional content: say, realizing that one has locked one's keys in the
> car. The set of possible such things that one can come to consciously
> realize to be true cannot be identified with any collection of "attraction
> basins" in a "mindscape", for reasons which have been expounded at length
> by Fodor in his 'language of thought': basically, the set of such thoughts
> isn't bounded a priori, but requires a productive notation of some kind for
> its complete expression. Put another way, the space through which the
> consciousness-point moves must somehow provide a way to articulate new
> propositions as time progresses; so a classical metric space, no matter how
> many-dimensional, will not serve the purpose. Similar observations can be
> had from linguistics: our grammatical competence can't be reduced to
> classical dynamics.
Thank you Mr Hayes for adding a further argument in defense of my theory
though that was not your intent because you failed to understand the
essential new feature provided by back-action which is completely
compatible with Fodor's point, in fact it implements it with a specific
mechanism. The error you have made is to wrongly assume that my basins
of attraction in configuration space are rigid i.e., fixed in time
independent of the actual path the brain-beable system point is taking.
That's indeed the way it is in quantum mechanics with zero back-action,
but that is not the way it is in post-quantum mechanics with non-zero
back-action. The sensory input is transduced, i.e.. imprinted from the
rocklike brain-beable system point back to the thoughtlike post-quantum
pilot wave whose quantum potential Q is shaping the basins so as to
encode any new sensory information coming in from the non-self world.
There is, therefore, a two-way nonlinear feedback loop between the
post-quantum mind and its attached actual classical brain configuration.
This is exactly the kind of mechanism that can "articulate new
propositions as time progresses", it is precisely why my post-quantum
mindscape is not at all "bounded a priori", that is what I mean't by
"living conscious post-quantum self-determination on the edge between
classical rocklike determinism and quantum thoughtlike indeterminism.
This is wat I mean when I say that the solution is acting back modifying
its generating equation as it is being itself generated. This is the
Godelian strange loop of creative self-organization that breathes life
into the equations of the post-quantum physics of consciousness. You
threw my baby out with the bathwater. Your objection is not at all an
objection, but is a vindication. In fact, my theory is compatible with
Fodor's criterion. You have simply not understood my main idea. The
representation in your mind of what my theory is is not a faithful
homomorphic image of what my theory actually in fact is.
>
> Physics isnt THAT easy. One has to somehow show that one's proposed
> mathematical account actually fits the observed facts. I (still) havnt seen
> anything in the New Physics which relates physical phenemona being
> described to anything observable *about consciousness*. Gravity has
> properties which can be measured and compared to the predictions of theory.
> What properties of consciousness are being compared to all this quantum
> talk, and what predictions are being made about them? What are the
> consciousness field equations?
Good, I am glad you raised that positivist red herring at this time
because I just discovered the perfect response for all such stuff from
Einstein's "Autobiographical Notes":
"With what right--the reader will ask--does this man operate so
carelessly and primitively with ideas in such a problematic realm
without making even the least effort to prove anything? My defense: all
our thinking is of this nature of free play with concepts; the
justification for this play lies in the degree of comprehension of our
sensations that we are able to achieve with its aid."
Also, a primitive form of the consciousness field equations is precisely
the GRW equations. Another model is in Henry Stapp's Phys. Rev A July
15, 1994 p. 18. The basic idea is simple. Consider a quantum wave
function psi(x,t) where a possible point in the classical configuration
space of the beable complex system of n particles plus their
electromagnetic field. Let X be the actual position of the beable at
time t. In ordinary quantum mechanics we have only psi(x,t), but in
post-quantum mechanics we have the new functional dependence PSI(x,X,t)
for the "living" post-quantum pilot-wave. The Schrodinger equation for
the pilot-wave is modified to a GRW type equation. We, ind addtion, have
the source equations of motion (d/dt)^2 X = -Grad (V + Q) + F suitably
scaled for masses etc. V is the classical potential and Q is the quantum
potential and F are any nonconservative forces.
>
> The proof is in
> >the pudding e.g. Q-chips, machines that successfully scan thoughts in a
> >brain, mind melds i.e. transfer of direct experience between brains. For
> >example, see Nick Herbert's book Elemental Mind. Using our math models
> >that's exactly the kind of technology our magick without magic will come
> >up with and be tested by.
>
> This is in the same category as cold fusion and perpetual motion. Better
> beam down for a while if you want to claim the mantle of science.
A phony cheap shot.
>
> ...>>
> >> THis is particularly true when one reflects that systems are possible which
> >> have identical physical properties but which are evidently not conscious.
> >
> >False. Name one.
> >
> >> One is obtained simply by taking a conscious brain and scrambling all the
> >> neural connections within it (but retaining the cellular microstructure)
> >
> >You contradict yourself. The two brains are not identical physically.
> >They have different patterns of connectivity. The correct neuronal
> >connectivity is needed to properly transduce information to an from the
> >quantum level.
>
> Hey, wait a minute. Where does your theory give *any* account of this
> 'proper transduction of information' ? If the brain is largely a neural
> computer, then everything that needs to get done can be done here, so this
> casual remark begs the entire question.
Again you simply do not understand my theory. No where do I claim that
the brain is largely a neural computer. The consciousness is at the
sub-neuronal level. The neurons are only the motor mechanisms and the
sensory devices. In other words the neurons are only the classical I/O
devices. The "CPU" is at the nanoscale post-quantum level with nonlocal
connectivity all over the body.
Subject: Random Walks Generating Nonintersecting Paths
From: Roderick Vance
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 13:31:55 +1000
Hi all specialists or those knowledgable in the realm of theory of
random walks.
I recently undertook a sizeable kayak race and began pondering the
problem of the determination of one's position on a river by observation
of river features, in particular, how many features must corroborate
with the map to achieve a certain statistical confidence level.
This problem is almost open ended, but an interesting subproblem would
involve only the data gleaned from river bend direction: one might
observe a sequence of turn directions (left, right, right, etc) and
attempt to corroborate it with the map. One gets a random binary
sequence and if it were white one would need to round -log_2(1-c) bends
to test a position hypothesis to a confidence level c. However, the
sequence will not be white as the river path is restricted in many ways,
e.g. to preclude self intersection (one could construe a river island or
a billabong as a degenerate manifestation of such an intersection, but
these are quite rare).
One could begin by assuming a constant distance between bends and an
assumption of right angled bends and then derive the clssification of
the sequences of bend direction allowable under the simple (i.e. non
self intersecting) path rule and then move on to augment the model by
throwing in appropriate probablility distributions for distance between
bends and bend angles (of course, these probability distributions will
not be inpendent, again, owing to the simple path rule).
Does anyone know of work done in random walk theory accommodating such
restrictions on the walk? The solution to this problem would allow the
determination of the information derived from bend observation and,
coupled with the empirical observation that more than two bends were
seldom required for an accurate postioning, to determine the
information content of other landscape feature observations.
If you think that this is the ultimate in nerd-dom consider this: the
kayak race was 404 kilometres long, went over five days and took me
forty two hours (jn a TK1-class boat) in temperatures as high as 40C.
The mind has to do something with that time!
best Regards
Roderick Vance
Hypatia Analytic Thought Pty. Ltd.
email: rodv@hypatia.com.au
Subject: Electrostatic Magnetism&Gravity; Part 2
From: rsansbury
Date: 4 Jan 1997 03:12:55 GMT
Regarding the size of the electrostatic dipoles: According to
Cavendish even as interpreted above the gravitational constant for a
small lead ball horizontally pulled toward a larger fixed lead ball was
about 6.67 times 10^-11; and according to Eratosthenes (from the
different shadows of sticks at noon on the solstice day at Alexandria and
at Syene 948km south, the curvature of the assumed spherical earth) the
earth's radius was nearly today's value R=6,371km.; and according to
Galileo and Newton the earth pulls objects down such that the downward
acceleration is, whatever the object, GM/R^2=9.8 meters per sec^2; from
these three observations, Cavendish inferred the density of the earth to
be nearly 5.5kg/cubic meter, the accepted value now based on
improvements in Cavendish's method; Hence the force of the earth whose
mass then is 5.98 times 10^24kg on a proton of mass 1.67 times 10^-27kg
on the earth's surface R=6.37(10^6) meters away from the earth's mass
concentrated at the center is .24 times 6.67 times 10^-11+24-27-12 =
1.6(10^-26) Newtons. Compare this to the gravitational force between two
protons one meter apart which is (6.67)(10^-11) times [(1.67)(10^-27)]^2
which if set equal to the force between electrostatic dipoles of unknown
length s , (9)(10^9)(es)^2 implies s=(.9)(10^-18). We are assuming that
the charge displaced is 'e' when in fact it might be some multiple of 'e'
greater than one. The mass of protons are known from their deflection
when propelled by an electric field through a magnetic field in mass
spectrometers; that is from the degree of charge polarization inside the
nuclei due to the electric field propelling them and the strength of the
magnetic field relative to the degree of charge polarization in the
nuclei due to gravity and the gravitational strength of the earth.
Now consider how many atoms there are in the earth and how many
protons plus neutrons in the average atom eg a total of 28 if all silicon
on average. (56 if all iron , 12 if all oxygen etc..) There are 6.02
times 10^26 atoms of silicon in 28kg so if the mass of the earth has
(5.98 times 10^24)/28 times 6.02 times 10^26 atoms and each of these
times has 28 (= 14protons plus 14 neutrons) yields 3.6 times 10^51
dipoles. Hence the force between half these dipoles concentrated at a
point R/2 meters from the surface and a single dipole at the earth's
surface is (9)(10^9)(3.6/2)(10^51) times
[(6.37/2)(10^6)(1.6)(10^-19)(.9)(10^-18)]^2 divided by
[(6.37/2)(10^6)]^4. This reduces to (3.32)(10^60-38-36-12)=(3.32)(10^-26)
Newtons compared to (1.6)(10^-26) as calculated above in the usual way.
Most of the force pulling the proton downward comes from dipoles on
the same radius
to the earth's center and on nearby radii whose net downward force is
projected through small angles on the proton's radius. The number of such
dipoles is within a few orders of magnitude of the 10^51 total. Since the
concentrated dipole in the center of the earth is not a real entity we do
not have to take into account the strong interference effect of it on
the dipole in the surface proton compared to the weak interference effect
of the single proton dipole on the hypothetical concentrated total
dipole. When we compute the pairwise force between our surface proton and
one about 10^6 meters away we are implicitly weighting the importance of
this force relative to protons a few meters away etc by the R^-4 term for
the force; that is when we sum all these pairwise forces the implicit
10^(-18+6) dipole length is given much less weight than the 10^-18 length
dipoles etc.. Also the degree to which the unique intermediate dipole in
the atomic nuclei, that would give the same result as these pairwise
constructs, can expand due to the primordial force proposed, is limited
by the electrostatic force between the core of the atomic nuclei and the
proposed oppositely charged orbiting particle or particles around the
core. Hence the intermediate value of the unique dipole that would give
the same sum of forces as the sum over the pairwise dipoles is probably
closer to 10^-18 eg 10^-16 which is in the range of measured values of
various atomic nuclei in various experimental contexts; also as we
mentioned the amount of charge displaced might be more then 'e' so that
the distance between poles could be smaller.
Regarding the attraction of the planets to the sun: This requires
an additional dipole inside the planet's nuclei oriented along lines
between these nuclei and the sun roughly parallel to each other and to a
line from the center of the planet to the sun. If the sun threw off
such material that coalesced and formed planets and then attracted it
back toward the sun and in the case of the earth, the earth's dipoles are
oriented with their positive pole on the outside which explains the
accumulation of free charge on the surface of the earth and the similar
potential gradient of the atmosphere; if this was the case then the outer
pole of the sun's dipoles is negative. Thus the outer positive pole of
the earth's atomic dipoles are attracted to the negative outer pole of
the sun's atomic dipoles.. At a greater distance from the planet the
dipoles associated with the spin of the planet and facing the sun may be
substantially weakened by oppositely directed spin dipoles on the dark
side of the planet. This demands that we add a solar dipole component in
the planet's atomic nuclei of a size that is similar to the spin dipole
component oriented along the planet's radii and that the solar component
dipole in each atomic nucleus changes orientation as the planet changes
its position with respect to the sun just as the spin component dipole
changes orientation as the earth's radius on which it is situated changes
direction as the earth spins. The need for such an added dipole is that
it would help to explain why the earth does not fall apart under the
influence of the sun's attraction of one side and its repulsion of the
other. That is the side of the earth nearest the sun is more attracted to
the sun but also because of the added dipole in the atomic nuclei, the
atoms of the earth nearest the sun are more attracted to each other when
compared to atoms on the dark side of the earth. Both of these effects
larglely cancel so that the net gravitational force on the sunny side of
the earth is the same as that on the dark side except for the observed
tidal effects. Similar considerations apply for dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of the the earth, other planets and the sun tracking the center of
the galaxy.
Now the largest distance between atomic nuclear dipoles on the earth
implicitly determining the maximal size of the dipoles is about 10^6
meters whereas the distances for planets to the sun is 5.79(10^10) for
mercury, (1.49)(10^11) for earth to 5.9(10^12) meters for pluto and for
the sun to the galactic center 10^4 parsecs= (3)(10^20) meters. Lets see
what the atomic nuclear dipoles in the sun and earth must be to give the
observed gravitational force between them and if they are small enough
to be consistent with the known distances between atoms at various
temperatures etc..That is we must be able to write the total dipoles as
keRs and KeRS where k and K are functions of the relative influence of
the total dipoles on each other etc; the totall dipoles here are
proportional to the masses(note the planet masses are
22,4.87,5.97,.64,1899.7,568.8,86.9,103.0, .013 times 10^24kg vs the
sun's(2)(10^30)kg.); that is to the number of protons plus neutrons,
denoted, protons-neutrons, in each mass. Since the sun is .75H+.25He so
that 1.75kg of sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 molcules each of which
contains on average 1.75 protons-neutrons so 1kg of sun contains 6.02
times 10^26 protons-neutrons in a volume that is larger of course than
that of 1 kg of a solid planet; but 1kg of any planet or the sun
contains the same number of protons -neutrons. There are about 2(10^30)
kg in the sun. Hence the sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 times M = 12 times
10^56 and earth contains 6.02 times 10^26 times m = 3.59times 10^51 unit
dipoles in the earth.The total dipoles are: k(s)RS is 1.2(10^57)k(s)RS*
and K(S)Rs is 3.59(10^51)K(S)Rs*.
Hence GmM/R^2 = 9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S* times
(N)(2.56)10^-38 divided by R^2. If N=1,this implies
kKs*S*=(.0079)10^-61-11+38 = (10^-36) approximately. Now RkS* and RKs*
are the magnitudes of the dipoles associated with the sun and planet
respectively where R is about 10^11 to 10^13 meters.. But we also know
that the earth's dipoles cannot be larger than atomic nuclei about 10^-15
=RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which implies kS*=10^-10 and RkS*=10^-10+11 so the
dipoles on the sun are 10 meters in length.
This sounds impossible. Perhaps the charge of the dipole could be
somehow larger so that instead of the sun's dipoles being eS* etc., it
could be e*S* where e* is the charge on say 1000 electrons or more and
S* could be that much smaller. After all at the high temperatures
(T=5.77(10^3) to 1.5(10^7) degrees Kelvin of the sun the average kinetic
energy is (1.5)(1.38)(10^-23)T Joules =.5mv^2 where 1.602(10^-19)Joules
=1ev and 9.1(10^-31)kg times v^2 gives the speed of an electron at this
temperature; that is about (10^-20)Joules /(10^-30) at the low 5770
degree value of T suggesting v=10^5 meters per second for this
temperature; but below the sun's surface then with much greater
temperatures, v is far in excess of the 10^6 meter/sec velocity of the
electron around the hydrogen or helium nuclei. This suggests that
dipoles much larger than those proposed for atomic nucle are possible
within plasmas between groups of electrons and groups of ions, protons
or helium nuclei separated by distances that can still be many orders of
magnitude smaller than ten meters.
Similar reasoning could explain the dipole attraction between the
solar system and the center of the galaxy. But what about the moon 3.84
times 10^8 meters away which suggests that if RKS* = (10^8)KS*=10-15 say
that (10^8)ks* = 10^-36+15 suggesting that Rks*=10^-13 meters. Perhaps
this is a problem or perhaps the tidal effects of the moon on the earth
and vice versa and perhaps the amount of charge polarized inside the
earth's atomic nuclei is larger than we first considered; that is, Ne ,
where N is greater than one.
What is the relationship of gravity to the net spin of the planet,
satellite, star, galaxy etc. and to the number of atoms contained in
each? Clearly as in Newtonian gravity theory the gravitational
attractive force of a planet etc is proportional to the number of atoms.
It is then proportional to the angular momentum but if the angular
velocity was increased and the mass was decreased so that the angular
momentum remained the same would the attractive force remain the same?
Blackett suggests such a possibility and a correlation between magnetic
field and gravitational field in the May 1947 issue of Nature regarding
the planets, the sun, and a few stars. An extension of this idea is that
a primordial electrostatic force produced a linear momentum of galaxies
or clusters of galaxies which was partitioned first into the angular
momenta of the spinning galaxies and then into the spinning stars and
then into the spinning planets and their satellites. That is the strength
of the magnetic field is a function of the total of the angular momentum
components and the linear momentum component and the number of
protons-neutrons in the mass considered.The total force may also be
evident in each of these objects down to the planetary satellites.If for
example the total force produces charge polarization inside atomic nuclei
and electrons initially in a high temperature plasma state, the effect
of the assumed linear force on charge polarized nuclei and plasmas would
be to cause a torque on individual nuclei but also on large clumps of
electrons and nuclei. This mechanism could provide a rationale for the
approximate covariation of gravity with angular momentum that Blackett,
Wilson and others had observed and an explanation of why the relationship
might not be more exact. Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a
rocket, a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning billiard ball
etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei transverse
to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if mechanical is
still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly propelled
atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic efficiency of
spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not be self
sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain model of
ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).
In the above mentioned ferroelectric model the dipoles are assumed to
be composed of poles, concentrations of charge that are fairly constant
over time unlike our model of charge polarization inside atomic nucle
which changes rapidly with the position of the orbiting charged
particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the orbital time
period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive
charge in a specific direction. In both models the dipole-dipole
interaction is the same but the interaction of one dipole with a single
pole of the other is different in the two models. In our model the action
of one dipole on the single pole of another is to produce a transverse
elliptical motion of the single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric
model to produce a motion of the pole only in the direction of the dipole
field and thereby to sustain a dipole field. It is conceivable that the
longitudinal and radial dipoles initially created by the primordial force
acting in the latitudinal direction causing the planet to spin could also
sustain the dipoles then produced; that is the longitudinal dipole field
would act to produce radial dipoles after thermal collisions etc and vice
versa. Perhaps this occurs more readily in spherical spinning objects.
But it is also conceivable that the force producing the accelerative
motions of the galaxies and so in some small component part, the spin of
the earth is constantly creating the dipoles anew; that the First Mover
or the force producing the accelerative Hubble expansion of the galaxies
is always however far away "with" us also in the sense of sustaining the
electrostatic dipoles of the gravitational force in our atoms.
For explanatory purposes suppose the primordial force acted only on a
clump of atoms that became the spinning earth when dipoles produced in
the atomic nuclei transverse to the initial linear force responded then
to the linear primordial force by also spinning. The spinning might
continue in the absence of friction by inertia. But what prevents the
dipoles from disappearing due to thermal collisions of atomic nuclei with
the inner shell of electrons, if there is no force to produce them? Now
working backwards suppose the linear primordial force is associated with
the movement of the solar system in the galaxy; then further backward
with the movement of the galaxy in a cluster etc. and that the primordial
force remains. The existence of this primordial force then is the cause
of the movement of galaxies is the cause of the movement of stars is
the cause of the sustained dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the planets of
stars that have planets which otherwise would be reduced to zero after a
few seconds of thermal collisions. When the moon was spun off the earth
and when we launch a satellite by rocket, the satellite is accelerated to
a velocity that exceeds the velocity that would bring it back to earth
but at all times during this transitional state and once it is in orbit
around the earth it is also being acted upon by the force which causes
the spinning of the earth and the earth's orbital and galactic motions
and so it responds like everything else to this force when the force that
launched it is removed; that is the nuclear dipoles in its atoms are
sustained, even when they have superimposed on them during the time of
launching other dipoles, and its motion with the earth around the sun etc
is sustained as well as its motion toward the earth constantly just
enough to keep it in orbit.
Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the
relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the
component of the ever present force that is manifest in the linear and
angular velocity components of the motion of the astronomical body. The
more atomic nuclei there are in the body and the greater its velocity
components the greater the gravitational and magnetic fields of the body.
Hence a spinning motion given to a ball by a momentary force may produce
initially additional charge polarization in its atomic nuclei in radial
oriented directions but without repetition of this force perhaps through
the self sustaining interaction of radial and longitudinal dipole fields
the charge polarization in the atomic nuclei quickly becomes zero due to
thermal collisions. In the case of the planets, measurements of their
magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and
layers of the gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and for the
planets near the sun the sun's magnetic field has an influence on the
measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic
field ten times stronger near its equator than the earth even though it
is several hundred times larger in mass and the fact that the direction
of the field is opposite to its surface rotation is perhaps
understandable in terms of different directions of rotation in different
regions and is consistent with the Blackett and Wilson theory; Also the
similarity of Neptune to Jupiter except that Neptune is about one
twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio of their magnetic
fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.
With repetition of the force causing linear motion or spin, the dipoles
can be sustained. This would imply that an airplane traveling from Europe
to the US for example is kept up not only by Bernoulli's principle but
also by a small antigravitational repelling force between the atomic
nuclear dipoles in the plane and those of the Earth below that should
increase with the Bernoulli effect with the speed of the plane. By the
same token, a plane traveling from the US to Europe would be heavier the
faster it traveled which even though offset by the greater lift due to
greater speed would not be offset as much as when the plane traveling in
the opposite direction also had speed related lift but was lighter. It
would be interesting to know if planes generally used more fuel per unit
speed and per unit wind speed when traveling from Europe to America than
when traveling in the opposite direction.
If in small spinning objects in particular,eg baseballs, the field of
the longitudinal dipoles could sustain the radial dipoles and the field
of the radial dipoles could sustain the longitudinal dipoles then the
initial outside force could be removed and the objects at least until
frictional forces had acted for enough time could depending on their
direction of spin become heavier or lighter as the airplane described
above. A related phenomenon might be Henry Wallace's patent 3 626 605 of
a kinemassic machine, a pair of wheels of brass like giroscopes which are
rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 rps and at the same time one is rotated
about another axis the wheels appear to be propelled upward of become
lighter (New Scientist 2/14/80). I haven't read the patent and do not
understand exactly what occurs as described in the magazine. I am told
that it was never actually built but that something similar did show a
small change in weight. The rotation speed is several times greater than
that suggested by Blackett for a bronze sphere 1 meter in diameter which
Blackett said should produce a magnetic field of 10^-8 Gauss. DePalma,
Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite have, I am told, reported similar
gravitational anomalies of spinning objects but I don't know the details
or references. Any information on this would be appreciated and could be
sent to Box 492 NY NY10185 or rns@concentric.net.
Regarding the Gravitational red shifts and bending of electromagnetic
radiation. Before considering the esoteric experiments consider the
commonplace observation of improvement in the reception of radio
frequencies at night from reception during the day. This is attributed to
greater radio activity during the day but it could also be attributed to
a decrease in the distance between colliding free electrons and lattice
ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the receiver
antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the earth.
When a star is observed against the background of stars at say
midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600 degrees ahead of its
position when its position is determined at the time of year it is
visible during an eclipse near the sun at noon; that is the greater
residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay
of reception; a longer delay as the earth truns more before light from
the particular star becomes visible. That is the proposed theory explains
the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distortion in the
trhee dimensional Cartesian coordinate system representing physical space
for out of the ordinary observations according to Einstein's ingenious
formula A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar
reflections from venus and mercury when they are on the opposite side of
the sun; that is the gravitational effect of the sun is not to change the
time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the sun so as to
increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of a sine
oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the earth so
that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on
the free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for
the received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna. Similarly for
other red shift experiments like Brault's on the gravitational red shift
of solar lines (Bull Amer Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma
rays as a function of their heighth 22.5 meters above the earth's surface
and the gravitational field of the earth may have a similar explanation.
That is the shift should be greater the greater the distance between the
source and the receiver at least during the day; if the experiment is
performed at night the results should be a lesser delay. But the cause of
the delay is not the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of
the sun's gravitational field on the earth's gravitational field Recent
variations in the gravitational constant when electostatic means are used
to create stability in balance measurements also may be explained more
clearly in terms of these effects than of GR effects.
Subject: Re: Speed of Light
From: Richard Mentock
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 23:02:01 -0500
Miguel Lerma wrote:
>
> Jason Lee (jplee@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu) wrote:
> > And then Richard Mentock quoth:
> > >Since the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light
> > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/speed_of_light.html
> > >the speed of light is always 299,792,458 meters/second.
> > >
> > >So, this is a value that won't change (the length of the
> > >meter might!)
>
> > If the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light with specifically
> > that constant, then it can't change, since the speed of light will always be
> > the speed of light.
>
> It could change if the definition of "second" changes. Also the
> definition of "meter" could become more accurate by improving our
> devices to measure the speed of light (which now sould be called
> "devices to determine the length of the meter").
No. The definition says that a meter is 1/299792458 of the distance
that light travels in a second in a vacuum. So, unless you change
*this* definition, changes to the definition of a second won't affect
it either.
I agree that if the second *were* to change, they'd probably get
around to changing this definition. My point was, for the time
being, we can say that the speed of light is *exactly* 299792458 m/s.
(No round-off, no experimental error)
--
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: mj17624@janus.swipnet.se
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 13:38:45 GMT
kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
>mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
>: Personally I don't think expansion theories can explain gravity. Among
>: other things it seems to be hard to get the 1/r^2 dependance.
> The inverse square function of the external field in
>Divergent Matter results because bodies of matter double in
>size in certain periods of time.
If we call the doubling time T for a body with diameter 1m and mass
1kg, and look at three such bodies:
o -10m- o -20m- o
at t=0
then at t=T
the bodies now have diameter 2m
O -9m- O -19m- O
we can continue this and conclude: the attraction of two bodies of the
same size and mass is independent of the distance between them.
>: Field theories on the other hand could very well be the answer to
>: gravity.
> I think "field" theories refer to the mathematics,
>rather than the mode of operation. In Divergent Matter,
>matter is one field, and everything around matter is the
>other.
Yes, that might be true. When I talk about field theories I mean
theories with the same structure as QED.
> The attractive thing about Divergent Matter is that
>the external field is purely geometrical, needing no method
>of operation. The fact that the units of time and length
>do lengthen with the passage of time makes Divergent Matter
>the only model of gravitation and TOE that ties space and
>time together based on a physical cause.
but space doesn't expand in your theory...
> (Assuming the above should read "If we developed") I have
>to say that space-time curving is observed, and Newton got
>around that by using a "field" theory, and it works great,
>but it leaves too much out, and isn't as accurate as General
>Relativity, and let's face it, General Relativity is a
>mathematical "field" theory, it just uses complex geometry.
GR claims to explain the real world, with curving of space-time.
GR is more accurate, but I see no reason why a field theory couldn't
be modified to incorporate that accuracy. GR has limiations that would
be nice to get around. And I think the premisses of GR can be
interpretated in other ways.
> That is an excellent description of Newtonian Gravitation,
>which will be used for most calculations where gravitation is
>concerned, probably forever, and General Relativity will be
>used when high accuracy is needed and for very high speeds
>and near dense bodies of matter.
The premise of GR is that you can't know the difference between
acceleration and gravity. That doesn't mean that they are the same. If
you by the same premisses could develop a quantum field theory for
gravity, the same effects would be incorporated and big problems could
be avoided.
> The advantage of having a model of gravitation
>that produces a totally different result than existing
>"attractive" theories is the ability to compare models
>with each other and with observation.
I agree. But your theory needs more development and a mathematical
structure to be able to explain phenomena already observed.
> Most stars are formed with less than 5 times
>the mass of the sun.
I am sure that this can be explained using attractive theories
(although I don't know how, I'm no expert in astrophysics)
Mathias Ljungberg
Subject: Electrostatic Magnetism & Gravity Continued
From: rsansbury
Date: 4 Jan 1997 03:32:00 GMT
Regarding the size of the electrostatic dipoles: According to
Cavendish even as interpreted above the gravitational constant for a
small lead ball horizontally pulled toward a larger fixed lead ball was
about 6.67 times 10^-11; and according to Eratosthenes (from the
different shadows of sticks at noon on the solstice day at Alexandria and
at Syene 948km south, the curvature of the assumed spherical earth) the
earth's radius was nearly today's value R=6,371km.; and according to
Galileo and Newton the earth pulls objects down such that the downward
acceleration is, whatever the object, GM/R^2=9.8 meters per sec^2; from
these three observations, Cavendish inferred the density of the earth to
be nearly 5.5kg/cubic meter, the accepted value now based on
improvements in Cavendish's method; Hence the force of the earth whose
mass then is 5.98 times 10^24kg on a proton of mass 1.67 times 10^-27kg
on the earth's surface R=6.37(10^6) meters away from the earth's mass
concentrated at the center is .24 times 6.67 times 10^-11+24-27-12 =
1.6(10^-26) Newtons. Compare this to the gravitational force between two
protons one meter apart which is (6.67)(10^-11) times [(1.67)(10^-27)]^2
which if set equal to the force between electrostatic dipoles of unknown
length s , (9)(10^9)(es)^2 implies s=(.9)(10^-18). We are assuming that
the charge displaced is 'e' when in fact it might be some multiple of 'e'
greater than one. The mass of protons are known from their deflection
when propelled by an electric field through a magnetic field in mass
spectrometers; that is from the degree of charge polarization inside the
nuclei due to the electric field propelling them and the strength of the
magnetic field relative to the degree of charge polarization in the
nuclei due to gravity and the gravitational strength of the earth.
Now consider how many atoms there are in the earth and how many
protons plus neutrons in the average atom eg a total of 28 if all silicon
on average. (56 if all iron , 12 if all oxygen etc..) There are 6.02
times 10^26 atoms of silicon in 28kg so if the mass of the earth has
(5.98 times 10^24)/28 times 6.02 times 10^26 atoms and each of these
times has 28 (= 14protons plus 14 neutrons) yields 3.6 times 10^51
dipoles. Hence the force between half these dipoles concentrated at a
point R/2 meters from the surface and a single dipole at the earth's
surface is (9)(10^9)(3.6/2)(10^51) times
[(6.37/2)(10^6)(1.6)(10^-19)(.9)(10^-18)]^2 divided by
[(6.37/2)(10^6)]^4. This reduces to (3.32)(10^60-38-36-12)=(3.32)(10^-26)
Newtons compared to (1.6)(10^-26) as calculated above in the usual way.
Most of the force pulling the proton downward comes from dipoles on
the same radius
to the earth's center and on nearby radii whose net downward force is
projected through small angles on the proton's radius. The number of such
dipoles is within a few orders of magnitude of the 10^51 total. Since the
concentrated dipole in the center of the earth is not a real entity we do
not have to take into account the strong interference effect of it on
the dipole in the surface proton compared to the weak interference effect
of the single proton dipole on the hypothetical concentrated total
dipole. When we compute the pairwise force between our surface proton and
one about 10^6 meters away we are implicitly weighting the importance of
this force relative to protons a few meters away etc by the R^-4 term for
the force; that is when we sum all these pairwise forces the implicit
10^(-18+6) dipole length is given much less weight than the 10^-18 length
dipoles etc.. Also the degree to which the unique intermediate dipole in
the atomic nuclei, that would give the same result as these pairwise
constructs, can expand due to the primordial force proposed, is limited
by the electrostatic force between the core of the atomic nuclei and the
proposed oppositely charged orbiting particle or particles around the
core. Hence the intermediate value of the unique dipole that would give
the same sum of forces as the sum over the pairwise dipoles is probably
closer to 10^-18 eg 10^-16 which is in the range of measured values of
various atomic nuclei in various experimental contexts; also as we
mentioned the amount of charge displaced might be more then 'e' so that
the distance between poles could be smaller.
Regarding the attraction of the planets to the sun: This requires
an additional dipole inside the planet's nuclei oriented along lines
between these nuclei and the sun roughly parallel to each other and to a
line from the center of the planet to the sun. If the sun threw off
such material that coalesced and formed planets and then attracted it
back toward the sun and in the case of the earth, the earth's dipoles are
oriented with their positive pole on the outside which explains the
accumulation of free charge on the surface of the earth and the similar
potential gradient of the atmosphere; if this was the case then the outer
pole of the sun's dipoles is negative. Thus the outer positive pole of
the earth's atomic dipoles are attracted to the negative outer pole of
the sun's atomic dipoles.. At a greater distance from the planet the
dipoles associated with the spin of the planet and facing the sun may be
substantially weakened by oppositely directed spin dipoles on the dark
side of the planet. This demands that we add a solar dipole component in
the planet's atomic nuclei of a size that is similar to the spin dipole
component oriented along the planet's radii and that the solar component
dipole in each atomic nucleus changes orientation as the planet changes
its position with respect to the sun just as the spin component dipole
changes orientation as the earth's radius on which it is situated changes
direction as the earth spins. The need for such an added dipole is that
it would help to explain why the earth does not fall apart under the
influence of the sun's attraction of one side and its repulsion of the
other. That is the side of the earth nearest the sun is more attracted to
the sun but also because of the added dipole in the atomic nuclei, the
atoms of the earth nearest the sun are more attracted to each other when
compared to atoms on the dark side of the earth. Both of these effects
larglely cancel so that the net gravitational force on the sunny side of
the earth is the same as that on the dark side except for the observed
tidal effects. Similar considerations apply for dipoles in the atomic
nuclei of the the earth, other planets and the sun tracking the center of
the galaxy.
Now the largest distance between atomic nuclear dipoles on the earth
implicitly determining the maximal size of the dipoles is about 10^6
meters whereas the distances for planets to the sun is 5.79(10^10) for
mercury, (1.49)(10^11) for earth to 5.9(10^12) meters for pluto and for
the sun to the galactic center 10^4 parsecs= (3)(10^20) meters. Lets see
what the atomic nuclear dipoles in the sun and earth must be to give the
observed gravitational force between them and if they are small enough
to be consistent with the known distances between atoms at various
temperatures etc..That is we must be able to write the total dipoles as
keRs and KeRS where k and K are functions of the relative influence of
the total dipoles on each other etc; the totall dipoles here are
proportional to the masses(note the planet masses are
22,4.87,5.97,.64,1899.7,568.8,86.9,103.0, .013 times 10^24kg vs the
sun's(2)(10^30)kg.); that is to the number of protons plus neutrons,
denoted, protons-neutrons, in each mass. Since the sun is .75H+.25He so
that 1.75kg of sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 molcules each of which
contains on average 1.75 protons-neutrons so 1kg of sun contains 6.02
times 10^26 protons-neutrons in a volume that is larger of course than
that of 1 kg of a solid planet; but 1kg of any planet or the sun
contains the same number of protons -neutrons. There are about 2(10^30)
kg in the sun. Hence the sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 times M = 12 times
10^56 and earth contains 6.02 times 10^26 times m = 3.59times 10^51 unit
dipoles in the earth.The total dipoles are: k(s)RS is 1.2(10^57)k(s)RS*
and K(S)Rs is 3.59(10^51)K(S)Rs*.
Hence GmM/R^2 = 9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S* times
(N)(2.56)10^-38 divided by R^2. If N=1,this implies
kKs*S*=(.0079)10^-61-11+38 = (10^-36) approximately. Now RkS* and RKs*
are the magnitudes of the dipoles associated with the sun and planet
respectively where R is about 10^11 to 10^13 meters.. But we also know
that the earth's dipoles cannot be larger than atomic nuclei about 10^-15
=RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which implies kS*=10^-10 and RkS*=10^-10+11 so the
dipoles on the sun are 10 meters in length.
This sounds impossible. Perhaps the charge of the dipole could be
somehow larger so that instead of the sun's dipoles being eS* etc., it
could be e*S* where e* is the charge on say 1000 electrons or more and
S* could be that much smaller. After all at the high temperatures
(T=5.77(10^3) to 1.5(10^7) degrees Kelvin of the sun the average kinetic
energy is (1.5)(1.38)(10^-23)T Joules =.5mv^2 where 1.602(10^-19)Joules
=1ev and 9.1(10^-31)kg times v^2 gives the speed of an electron at this
temperature; that is about (10^-20)Joules /(10^-30) at the low 5770
degree value of T suggesting v=10^5 meters per second for this
temperature; but below the sun's surface then with much greater
temperatures, v is far in excess of the 10^6 meter/sec velocity of the
electron around the hydrogen or helium nuclei. This suggests that
dipoles much larger than those proposed for atomic nucle are possible
within plasmas between groups of electrons and groups of ions, protons
or helium nuclei separated by distances that can still be many orders of
magnitude smaller than ten meters.
Similar reasoning could explain the dipole attraction between the
solar system and the center of the galaxy. But what about the moon 3.84
times 10^8 meters away which suggests that if RKS* = (10^8)KS*=10-15 say
that (10^8)ks* = 10^-36+15 suggesting that Rks*=10^-13 meters. Perhaps
this is a problem or perhaps the tidal effects of the moon on the earth
and vice versa and perhaps the amount of charge polarized inside the
earth's atomic nuclei is larger than we first considered; that is, Ne ,
where N is greater than one.
What is the relationship of gravity to the net spin of the planet,
satellite, star, galaxy etc. and to the number of atoms contained in
each? Clearly as in Newtonian gravity theory the gravitational
attractive force of a planet etc is proportional to the number of atoms.
It is then proportional to the angular momentum but if the angular
velocity was increased and the mass was decreased so that the angular
momentum remained the same would the attractive force remain the same?
Blackett suggests such a possibility and a correlation between magnetic
field and gravitational field in the May 1947 issue of Nature regarding
the planets, the sun, and a few stars. An extension of this idea is that
a primordial electrostatic force produced a linear momentum of galaxies
or clusters of galaxies which was partitioned first into the angular
momenta of the spinning galaxies and then into the spinning stars and
then into the spinning planets and their satellites. That is the strength
of the magnetic field is a function of the total of the angular momentum
components and the linear momentum component and the number of
protons-neutrons in the mass considered.The total force may also be
evident in each of these objects down to the planetary satellites.If for
example the total force produces charge polarization inside atomic nuclei
and electrons initially in a high temperature plasma state, the effect
of the assumed linear force on charge polarized nuclei and plasmas would
be to cause a torque on individual nuclei but also on large clumps of
electrons and nuclei. This mechanism could provide a rationale for the
approximate covariation of gravity with angular momentum that Blackett,
Wilson and others had observed and an explanation of why the relationship
might not be more exact. Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a
rocket, a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning billiard ball
etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei transverse
to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if mechanical is
still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly propelled
atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic efficiency of
spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not be self
sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain model of
ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).
In the above mentioned ferroelectric model the dipoles are assumed to
be composed of poles, concentrations of charge that are fairly constant
over time unlike our model of charge polarization inside atomic nucle
which changes rapidly with the position of the orbiting charged
particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the orbital time
period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive
charge in a specific direction. In both models the dipole-dipole
interaction is the same but the interaction of one dipole with a single
pole of the other is different in the two models. In our model the action
of one dipole on the single pole of another is to produce a transverse
elliptical motion of the single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric
model to produce a motion of the pole only in the direction of the dipole
field and thereby to sustain a dipole field. It is conceivable that the
longitudinal and radial dipoles initially created by the primordial force
acting in the latitudinal direction causing the planet to spin could also
sustain the dipoles then produced; that is the longitudinal dipole field
would act to produce radial dipoles after thermal collisions etc and vice
versa. Perhaps this occurs more readily in spherical spinning objects.
But it is also conceivable that the force producing the accelerative
motions of the galaxies and so in some small component part, the spin of
the earth is constantly creating the dipoles anew; that the First Mover
or the force producing the accelerative Hubble expansion of the galaxies
is always however far away "with" us also in the sense of sustaining the
electrostatic dipoles of the gravitational force in our atoms.
For explanatory purposes suppose the primordial force acted only on a
clump of atoms that became the spinning earth when dipoles produced in
the atomic nuclei transverse to the initial linear force responded then
to the linear primordial force by also spinning. The spinning might
continue in the absence of friction by inertia. But what prevents the
dipoles from disappearing due to thermal collisions of atomic nuclei with
the inner shell of electrons, if there is no force to produce them? Now
working backwards suppose the linear primordial force is associated with
the movement of the solar system in the galaxy; then further backward
with the movement of the galaxy in a cluster etc. and that the primordial
force remains. The existence of this primordial force then is the cause
of the movement of galaxies is the cause of the movement of stars is
the cause of the sustained dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the planets of
stars that have planets which otherwise would be reduced to zero after a
few seconds of thermal collisions. When the moon was spun off the earth
and when we launch a satellite by rocket, the satellite is accelerated to
a velocity that exceeds the velocity that would bring it back to earth
but at all times during this transitional state and once it is in orbit
around the earth it is also being acted upon by the force which causes
the spinning of the earth and the earth's orbital and galactic motions
and so it responds like everything else to this force when the force that
launched it is removed; that is the nuclear dipoles in its atoms are
sustained, even when they have superimposed on them during the time of
launching other dipoles, and its motion with the earth around the sun etc
is sustained as well as its motion toward the earth constantly just
enough to keep it in orbit.
Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the
relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the
component of the ever present force that is manifest in the linear and
angular velocity components of the motion of the astronomical body. The
more atomic nuclei there are in the body and the greater its velocity
components the greater the gravitational and magnetic fields of the body.
Hence a spinning motion given to a ball by a momentary force may produce
initially additional charge polarization in its atomic nuclei in radial
oriented directions but without repetition of this force perhaps through
the self sustaining interaction of radial and longitudinal dipole fields
the charge polarization in the atomic nuclei quickly becomes zero due to
thermal collisions. In the case of the planets, measurements of their
magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and
layers of the gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and for the
planets near the sun the sun's magnetic field has an influence on the
measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic
field ten times stronger near its equator than the earth even though it
is several hundred times larger in mass and the fact that the direction
of the field is opposite to its surface rotation is perhaps
understandable in terms of different directions of rotation in different
regions and is consistent with the Blackett and Wilson theory; Also the
similarity of Neptune to Jupiter except that Neptune is about one
twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio of their magnetic
fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.
With repetition of the force causing linear motion or spin, the dipoles
can be sustained. This would imply that an airplane traveling from Europe
to the US for example is kept up not only by Bernoulli's principle but
also by a small antigravitational repelling force between the atomic
nuclear dipoles in the plane and those of the Earth below that should
increase with the Bernoulli effect with the speed of the plane. By the
same token, a plane traveling from the US to Europe would be heavier the
faster it traveled which even though offset by the greater lift due to
greater speed would not be offset as much as when the plane traveling in
the opposite direction also had speed related lift but was lighter. It
would be interesting to know if planes generally used more fuel per unit
speed and per unit wind speed when traveling from Europe to America than
when traveling in the opposite direction.
If in small spinning objects in particular,eg baseballs, the field of
the longitudinal dipoles could sustain the radial dipoles and the field
of the radial dipoles could sustain the longitudinal dipoles then the
initial outside force could be removed and the objects at least until
frictional forces had acted for enough time could depending on their
direction of spin become heavier or lighter as the airplane described
above. A related phenomenon might be Henry Wallace's patent 3 626 605 of
a kinemassic machine, a pair of wheels of brass like giroscopes which are
rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 rps and at the same time one is rotated
about another axis the wheels appear to be propelled upward of become
lighter (New Scientist 2/14/80). I haven't read the patent and do not
understand exactly what occurs as described in the magazine. I am told
that it was never actually built but that something similar did show a
small change in weight. The rotation speed is several times greater than
that suggested by Blackett for a bronze sphere 1 meter in diameter which
Blackett said should produce a magnetic field of 10^-8 Gauss. DePalma,
Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite have, I am told, reported similar
gravitational anomalies of spinning objects but I don't know the details
or references. Any information on this would be appreciated and could be
sent to Box 492 NY NY10185 or rns@concentric.net.
Regarding the Gravitational red shifts and bending of electromagnetic
radiation. Before considering the esoteric experiments consider the
commonplace observation of improvement in the reception of radio
frequencies at night from reception during the day. This is attributed to
greater radio activity during the day but it could also be attributed to
a decrease in the distance between colliding free electrons and lattice
ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the receiver
antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the earth.
When a star is observed against the background of stars at say
midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600 degrees ahead of its
position when its position is determined at the time of year it is
visible during an eclipse near the sun at noon; that is the greater
residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay
of reception; a longer delay as the earth truns more before light from
the particular star becomes visible. That is the proposed theory explains
the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distortion in the
trhee dimensional Cartesian coordinate system representing physical space
for out of the ordinary observations according to Einstein's ingenious
formula A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar
reflections from venus and mercury when they are on the opposite side of
the sun; that is the gravitational effect of the sun is not to change the
time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the sun so as to
increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of a sine
oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the earth so
that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on
the free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for
the received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna. Similarly for
other red shift experiments like Brault's on the gravitational red shift
of solar lines (Bull Amer Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma
rays as a function of their heighth 22.5 meters above the earth's surface
and the gravitational field of the earth may have a similar explanation.
That is the shift should be greater the greater the distance between the
source and the receiver at least during the day; if the experiment is
performed at night the results should be a lesser delay. But the cause of
the delay is not the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of
the sun's gravitational field on the earth's gravitational field Recent
variations in the gravitational constant when electostatic means are used
to create stability in balance measurements also may be explained more
clearly in terms of these effects than of GR effects.
