Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong has been published in America.

Fame, physics, and unification of fundamental forces

Smolin's Why no new Einstein? essay in the June 2005 issue of Physics Today is online as a PDF file here which kinda contrasts with Edward Witten's essay in the April 1996 issue of the same journal which claimed that his (Witten's) stringy 10 and 11 dimensional M-theory 'has the remarkable property of predicting gravity'.

Seeing that for all his brilliance Einstein just set the stage for string theory to take over physics as a mechanism-less speculation which does not interact properly with the real world, Witten well deserves to be called a new Einstein, along with Nobel laureate 't Hooft.

't Hooft falsely claims that Maxwell's continuous differential equation of displacement current for a charging capacitor is not in conflict with the fact that the capacitor's charge increases in discrete units (electrons), not as a continuous variable.

Because Maxwell's displacement current equation is one half of Maxwell's electromagnetic radiation theory (in conjunction with Faraday's law of induction, another Maxwell equation first written in vector calculus by Oliver Heaviside who doesn't get credit) we can see why classical electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations) fail to work for situations where individual charges are important such as small capacitors, for example atoms are capacitors (they have are positive and negative charges separated by vacuum) which is a way of analysing the problem that reveals a lot about why Maxwell's displacement current formula breaks down for quantum theory. This is crucial, because Schroedinger's equation and Dirac's equation describing energy transfer as wavefunctions of a field change are quantized versions of the displacement current law as shown in previous posts and in a section on the page http://feynman137.tripod.com/ (more about this later in this post).

All charges are exchanging continuous (TEM energy slab type) energy, just as two batteries in a parallel circuit are doing so, as explained previously. In a steady state, there is an equilibrium of exchange so each electron receives the same amount of energy as it emits. This explains how space around and between charges is "charged" with an electric field but no magnetic field (the magnetic field curls cancel out when there is equilibrium of exchange, because the curls cancel one another from exchange radiation components travelling in each direction).

The atom is a capacitor which violates Maxwell's equation for displacement current. The photon gets emitted because of this failure in Maxwell's displacement current equation, which is only valid statistically for large numbers of charges, and breaks down for individual electrons. The photon is emitted as compensation for the discrete change in energy level of the electron. When the electron is at a high energy state, it has potential energy tied up the the electromagnetic field between it and the nucleus. The electron cannot radiate all of the energy as the photon, and this fact creates the Planck law of quantized energy levels. When the electron falls back to the ground state, its centripetal outward acceleration increases according to a = (v^2)/r where r is radius. When r gets smaller (electron falling towards ground state), the centripetal acceleration gets bigger, and this counteracts the bigger Coulomb (inverse square law) force which exists nearer the nucleus.

The electron does obey Maxwell's theory that radiation occurs due to acceleration (such as centripetal acceleration) but this is dismissed by Bohr and Rutherford on the false belief that if a charge continuously radiated, it would lose energy. The poverty of intuition here is obvious. By analogy, Bohr and Rutherford might as well claim to disprove Prevost's 1792 thermodynamics by claiming that if every body above absolute zero is always radiating heat, then everything would have long since be frozen. This is false, because it ignores the fact that equilibrium can occur. What is happening in the case of the electron is that it is emitting continuous Heaviside slab type electromagnetic radiation (no oscillation, zero frequency), just as it emits heat photons (oscillating radiation) when above absolute zero. We detect the oscillating radiation because it causes other charges to resonate. We detect the non-oscillating radiation (Yang-Mills exchange radiation) because it causes forces and steady state force fields.

Anyhow, Smolin's new book The Trouble with Physics, has been reviewed on Bee's Backreaction Blog.

Bee is an unusually intelligent German female physicist. I read some of Smolin's writings - including Life of the Cosmos which delivers the useful message that the universe was not designed as such but is still evolving, like a city that evolved gradually over centuries, and listened to some of his lectures on line. I didn't have time to attend Smolin's lecture at the London School of Economics last month because I'm not a professional physicist and hate London, and since Smolin doesn't reply to my emails I don't have any interest in asking him questions at a public lecture which will possibly be verging on harrassment, which won't get help anything. [Sometimes when girls don't respond to emails I keep on regularly following up, because I don't know whether they have received the email or not (if you are on hotmail the messages deleted every now and then automatically if emails are not accessed regularly, regardless of whether they have actually been read or not). If girls are so rude that they can't send a 'no thanks' or 'not interested' email when asked for a date by email, then they should not try to claim that some repeat emails are annoying. If someone says 'not interested' then I'm gone. However, I'm not telepathic so don't have any means to know unless told.]

Anyhow, the world doesn't need more of Einstein's type/hype, as there are now about a million clones of Einstein's style of mathematical physics with PhD's in the world, and they all think pretty much alike which is the reason for the tragic group think farce of string "theory" (I know what theories are, and ad hoc abject stringy speculation that can't do anything for physics, except bog it down in arrogant sh*t, is no theory). Lee Smolin states:

"The problem with following trends is that lots of people try to do that and the result is that they all reduce their chances. There are fewer places for people who ignore fashion and follow their own ideas, but there are also fewer people who have the courage to follow their own ideas and the imagination to have good ideas. Life is not fair, but very roughly these things seem to even out, so that the best advice career wise seems to be to figure out what you love doing and what you are good at (which is often the same thing) and just do that. Whatever you do the invariants are that you have to work hard to get good results and you have to work also at communicating your results."

Gerard 't Hooft and Danny Ross Lunsford are curious characters, as I've commented before. Hooft won the 1999 Nobel Prize for showing that Yang-Mills (gauge boson exchange radiation) quantum field theory is renormalizable. This is just mathematics. Hooft has a photo of a statue of himself on his own page. Need I say more about the man's ego? Yes. Last December, about the time that John 'Jupiter Effect' Gribbin emailed me to say that people can be sued for sending emails containing scientific work (Gribbin refuses to admit that democracy and freedom were won in WorldWar II), and I returned by saying with a few brief (four letter) words that fascism is awful, both Hooft and Smolin emailed me saying simply that they don't want to receive any more emails of that type. None of them replied to the science.

I repeat the science again. Under 'research interests' Hooft lists only the following on his page (all of which are 100% what my research is concerned with, which he ignores and doesn't want to hear about):

"Gauge theories in elementary particle physics. This was the topic of the 1999 Nobel Prize. An idea was proposed by C.N. Yang and Robert Mills in 1954: they suggested that particles in the sub-atomic world might interact via fields that are similar to, but more general than electricity and magnetism. But, even though the interactions that had been registered in experiments showed some vague resemblance to the Yang-Mills equations, the details seemed to be all wrong. Attempts to perform accurate calculations were frustrated by infinite - hence meaningless - results. Together with my advisor then, and my co-Nobel-laureate now, M. Veltman, we found in 1970 how to renormalize the theory, and, more importantly, we identified the theories for which this works, and what conditions they must fulfil. One must, for instance, have a so-called Higgs-particle. It was subsequently discovered that, actually, the details of the observed forces now exactly fall in place. First it was found that the so-called weak force, in combination with the more familiar electro-magnetic one, is exactly described by a Yang-Mills theory. In 1973 it was concluded that also the strong force is a Yang-Mills theory. I was among the small number of people who were already convinced of this from early 1971. During the later 1970s, all pieces fell into place. Of all simple models describing the fundamental particles, one was standing out, the so-called `Standard Model'. Gauge theories are the backbone of this Standard Model. But now it also became clear that this is much more than just a model: it is the Standard Theory. Great precision can be reached, though the practical difficulties in some sectors are still substantial, and it would be great if one could devise more powerful calculation techniques. Also, in spite of all its successes, the Standard Model, as it is formulated at present, shows deficiencies. It cannot be exactly right. Significant refinements are expected when the results of new experiments become known, hopefully during 2007 and subsequent years, when the European particle accelerator LHC becomes fully operational.

"Quantum gravity and black holes . The predominant force controlling large scale events in the Universe is the gravitational one. The physical and the mathematical nature of this force were put in an entirely new perspective by Albert Einstein. He noted that gravitation is rooted in geometric properties of space and time themselves. The equations he wrote down for this force show a remarkable resemblance with the gauge forces that control the sub-nuclear world as described in the previous paragraph, but there is one essential difference: if we investigate how individual sub-atomic particles would affect one another gravitationally, we find that the infinities are much worse, and renormalization fails here. Under normal circumstances, the gravitational force between sub-atomic particles is so weak that these difficulties are insignificant, but at extremely tiny distance scales, of the order of 10^-33 cm, this force will become strong. We are tempted to believe that, at these tiny distance scales, the fabric of space and time is affected by quantum mechanical phenomena, but exactly how this happens is still very mysterious. One approach to this problem is to ask: under which circumstance is the gravitational force as strong as it ever can be? The answer to this is clear: at the horizon of a black hole. If we could understand the peculiar physical phenomena that one expects at the horizon of a black hole, and if we could find a meaningful description of its quantum mechanical laws, then perhaps this would open up new perspectives.

"Fundamental aspects of quantum physics. I have deviating views on the physical interpretation of quantum theory, and its implications for Big Bang theories of the Universe. This topic has been expanded upon in my publication, entitled: Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System (see my publication list)."

My new "anon" comment to Plato's/Hooft's blog (must be anon or Hooft would simple be able to think it was written by an "egotist" and not bother even reading it at all):

Plato {Hooft},

Renormalization is adjustment of charge and mass for the contributions of the vacuum to them.
Around an electron, the virtual charges in the vacuum become polarized, and this reduces the electric field at a large distance because the polarization opposes the electric field from the electron core.

Renormalization deals with the problem that the amount of polarization is not infinite. If the whole vacuum was free to be polarized around an electron, the vacuum polarization would increase until it cancelled exactly 100% of the electron's radial electric field.

Hence the electron would have no electric charge at all observable from a distance.

The physical explanation is that the polarization of the vacuum charges does not stretch out to infinity, it is limited in range to the space close to the electron core, and beyond a certain limit (corresponding to the lower limit energy cutoff in the renormalization math) no polarization can occur.

Clearly, this physics shows that the vacuum charges which are polarized are actually CREATED in the strong electric field close to the electron core, where the electromagnetic energy density (which falls as inverse square of distance) is high enough to create free pairs of charges out of the vacuum.

Quantum field theory includes annihilation and creation operators, and these must have a physical correspondence in reality.

When you get well away from mass, there is no free virtual charge in the vacuum which can be polarized. If there were, all electric fields would be 100% cancelled, so there would be no real charges.

Why can't people understand this? It is so simple. Why always call it a personal pet theory of the person saying it?

There is no [free] zero-point energy, or renormalization would not work, because the lower limit cutoff would be zero and the polarization would extend infinitely and there would no electric charges, no atoms, no people, nothing.

[This argument pertains to free, polarizable charge in the vacuum distant from matter; obviously if there was non-free charge present that could not be polarized to cancel out free charges, then you could still have some kind of structured or chaotic Dirac Sea. This would have to either be so chaotic that polarization could not be set up because the particles' motions are too energetic and random to be ordered at all by polarization at long distances from a charge (this is the most likely explanation as it has a full mechanism and makes predictions which are checkable and so far as tested so far, are in excellent agreement with experimental reality), or so structured such as by a lattice arrangement that weak electric fields are unable to polarize the charge because the charge remains stuck in the lattice unless a minimum work function energy is supplied to free the charges so that they can then be polarized (this is less likely because any lattice structure to the vacuum would seem to break down the isotropic freedom of radiation to go at the same velocity in all directions, if radiation is mediated by the virtual or 'displacement charge' currents in the vacuum as classical electromagnetism suggests).]

Cheers, anon.

anon Homepage 08.05.06 - 6:24 am #

Now for Lunsford, who has an abstract unification of electrodynamics and general relativity using six dimensional with three dimensions presumably representing contractable spacetime dimensions matter, and three representing continually expanding spacetime; so the six dimensions may not be truly supplemental but overlap in a simple sense and represent merely mathematically rulers, a contractable ruler for measuring matter which can be contracted locally by acceleration fields such as gravity and motion, and an expanding ruler for measuring the expanding background spacetime of the cosmos on a large universe-sized, non-local scale.

But the exciting thing about Lunsford's approach is that it makes the definite prediction that there is no cosmological constant and therefore no dark energy. Hence Lunsford appears to get precisely the same result as the Yang-Mills gravity mechanism (which also shows lambda = zero, dark energy = 0, see also this previous post for a visual explanation; there are various different ways of showing the same thing), but by using the abstract mathematical approach instead of the causal mechanism approach. I sent him an email about the atom as capacitor. Since the atom contains separated positive and negative charge with an intervening vacuum, it is a charged vacuum dielectric capacitor for purposes of dealing with the way it gains and loses energy. The electron resists getting an increase in charge, and jumps in kinetic energy and distance from nucleus instead. If Yang-Mills is right for electromagnetism (there is plenty of evidence from electroweak theory experiments that it is correct so far as it goes), there electromagnetic forces are due to continual exchanges of radiation between charges. The radiation is TEM wave radiation, transverse electromagnetic. It doesn't have to wave when it is being exchanged in an equilibrium situation, because that is like a direct current (Morse tap or logic step) Heaviside signal being propagated with currents in opposite directions down each of a pair of parallel conductors (a "transmission line" in electronics jargon). With Yang-Mills exchange radiation, the equal energy exchange in opposite directions cancels out the magnetic field curls from each component, so vacuum magnetic self inductance effects do not stop propagation by being infinite: they are zero. Hence you don't need to have the gauge bosons oscillate to be exchanged between charges. Oscillation (where the electric field varies from a peak of +v volts through zero to -v volts in a cycle which is determined by the frequency, and is accompanied by magnetic fields curling around the direction of energy flow in say clockwise then stopping and then curling inan anticlockwise direction) is only required where energy goes from A to B without energy simultaneously going from B to A. If energy is in exchange equilibrium, going both from A to B and from B to A simultaneously, then there is no need for the radiation to be oscillating to propagate. Catt had claimed that all capacitor charge in steps. Therefore, it seemed reasonable that the reason for quantum jumps in putting energy into an atomic electron is that the Maxwellian exponential charging curve for a capacitor - which is based on Maxwell's displacement current equation - is the sh*t in classical electromagnetism that needs to be corrected to convert it into quantum reality. Lunsford sent a reply that it appeared interesting, then did not indulge in any further discussion. Previously, he had sent an email saying don't send emails.

On the topic of Smolin's Loop Quantum Gravity, Smolin and others showed that Feynman's path integrals quantum field theory can be used to describe metric-less general relativity, i.e., we have quantum gravity minus the dynamics of contraction. Moving a little beyond the mathematics of of path integrals, the underlying physics for the mathematical model is Yang-Mills theory - that forces including inertial forces are due to normal energy exchange processes between charges (such as electric charges, color charges, etc., with gravitational charges being mass) - is capable of supplying not just the contraction dynamics of general relativity, but the dynamics for the physical underlying causes of forces themselves. This is shown in previous posts on this blog (just make sure you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer and not using the Mozilla Firefox internet browser, or else Greek symbols on this blog will appear to you as letters such as p for Pi, r for Rho, and such letters are already used by me, p = momentum, r = radial distance, etc., so you'll get yourself all confused which would be a terrible shame, wouldn't it?).

At http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/planck.html John Baez has a page about spin network and spin foams. I stopped reading it on the page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html where the fool dimensionally obtains Planck length which is an ARBITRARY (SPECULATIVE) and massive size, on the order 10^-35 m and thus far, far BIGGER than the black hole electron radius which is just 2GM/c^2. What a crackpot. It is a pity that he can't remove rubbish from his webpages, and just leave the good stuff like http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

While I'm on a roll of exposing folly, Peter Woit is silly for taking the Physics World review of his book (Not Even Wrong) by Gordon Fraser, entitled String theory gets knotted, as a genuine review. First the review has no content, just non-scientific trivia such as sneers about the city Rutherford claimed to discover the nucleus on (in fact, Japanese physicists had already come up with the nuclear atom and Rutherford never did the experiments which were done by Geiger and Marsden in Manchester). Second, the review is a sneering attack on Woit's brilliant discussion of the Standard Model. The online review concludes: "Gordon Fraser edited The New Physics for the 21st Century, recently published by Cambridge University Press, e-mail gordon.fraser@wanadoo.fr. He is currently writing a biography of Abdus Salam."

Gordon Fraser should know that Abdus Salam was the sh*t who refused to discuss the Catt Anomaly with Catt in Wireless World in 1981. Salam wrote Catt a letter which Catt had published on the letters page of Wireless World. Salam's letter stated that he refused to try to resolve such problems in physics. So that is the end of Salam's reputation so far as I'm concerned. These people who write books about crackpots who win Nobel Prizes are sh*ts.

Just to elaborate, there is a whole section about Alfred Nobel blowing up family members and workers, warmongering including supplying both sides of the Crimean war of the 1850s, and so on, in my unpublished 1990 book. If you accept a Nobel Peace Prize, or physics prize, or whatever, just remember it was paid for by massacres. When I tried promoting the gravity mechanism on Physics Forums, one of the obscene email messages of abuse I received was pretty revealing: 'If you are right, then why haven't I heard you win the Nobel Prize?'

This is the kind of sneering abuse that shows such prizes are not merely commemorating warmongering, worker exploiting, driven capitalist sh*ts, but the prizes are far worse: they can be used to attack genuine research work which is being suppressed by previous award winners.

I replied in no uncertain terms what I thought of prizes in general and Nobel ones in particular! If you get say an email saying you have won a fantastic prize, you immediately ask 'Who sent it? Who is offering it and why? Am I going to have to pay - or overpay - for this?'

Of the various competitions, the fairest are those in which competitors choose to enter in advance of the awards being announced. If someone enters a sports competition, fair enough. What is less fair is the concept that anyone trying to understand the universe can be smeared with the false allegation that they are merely out to win a warmongering blood-covered prize set up posthumorously by the will of a selfish, Hitler-like thug, obsessed with exploiting and destroying others. Not so!

For information on loop quantum gravity dynamics see this post. The biggest insight provided by Woit's Not Even Wrong for me was the simplification of loop quantum gravity:

'In loop quantum gravity, the basic idea is to use the standard methods of quantum theory, but to change the choice of fundamental variables that one is working with. It is well known among mathematicians that an alternative to thinking about geometry in terms of curvature fields at each point in a space is to instead think about the holonomy [whole rule] around loops in space. The idea is that in a curved space, for any path that starts out somewhere and comes back to the same point (a loop), one can imagine moving along the path while carrying a set of vectors, and always keeping the new vectors parallel to older ones as one moves along. When one gets back to where one started and compares the vectors one has been carrying with the ones at the starting point, they will in general be related by a rotational transformation. This rotational transformation is called the holonomy of the loop. It can be calculated for any loop, so the holonomy of a curved space is an assignment of rotations to all loops in the space.' - P. Woit, Not Even Wrong, Cape, London, 2006, p189.

This, the Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange process, is physically in perfect correspondence not to the 'loop' of the creation-annihilation-creation of matter (as illustrated at the top of this linked post), but rather to the 'loop' of the gauge boson radiation starting from one gravitational charge (mass), going to another, and returning to the first mass again. Because the energy carried by the gauge boson to cause force is conserved, we can extract physical predictions and dynamics from this model. For example, if you move masses apart, the gauge boson radiation energy at any instant is spread over larger distances and the force strength therefore falls as it spends more of its time in transit, and if the masses are receding from one another, the exchange radiation is redshifted so gravity falls off over cosmological distances. In particular, there is a correspondence between this physical picture of what happens in Yang-Mills quantum field theory and the way you get fundamental forces and the contraction effect in relativity, as explained in previous posts on this blog.

Energy is continuously radiated by continuously spinning charge due to the centripetal acceleration due to spin. Since all charges behave alike in this regard, in some situations (generally known as "statics" in mechanics, and "electrostatics" in electricity) an equilibrium can occur, where the radiant power (energy transmitted per second) of gauge boson radiation energy being radiated and received by any charge is EXACTLY equal. This occurs because any slightly larger charge radiates more strongly and since the radiating power of every charge is really immense, all charges thereby equalise to identical charge almost instantly, as Ivor Catt brilliantly explained in a simple manner in his book Electromagnetism 1, http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_2.htm:

'Keeping within the wave theoretical system, it is possible to explain why so-called 'particles' should appear to have equal size ... One method would be to discuss ... the resulting energy/matter exchange. There are three possibilities. Either the larger steals from the smaller, or there is no transfer, or the smaller steals from the larger. The fact that there is more than one 'particle' in today's galaxy indicates that if a galaxy is very old, the first possibility must be wrong. The second possibility is unlikely [nc note: this is because of the Yang-Mills exchange-radiation quantum field theory being such a success experimentally; although Catt wants no part in any aspect of quantum field theory, he was at least sympathetic with Feynman's path integrals when I explained the mechanism of it to him some years ago, but unfortunately Catt doesn't take an interest in developing or even tolerating development of this kind of physics from his own semi-correct intuitive and experimentally based ideas, which is my interest; he is essentially only interested in electronics and censorship problems]. The third would fully explain the gradual equalizing out of 'particles' in a galaxy over time. (This approach ... needs extension to explain the existence of more than one type of particle.)'.

I've developed this to predict all observable masses of elementary particles on my home page: see http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ (including http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html and http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/important-note-to-users-of-web-browers.html also http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/relationship-between-charge-of-quarks.html and http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-polarization-of-vacuum-and.html for diagram). Analogy: temperature is a radiation equilibrium in an undisturbed room because hotter things radiate faster than cooler things, so everything soon approaches the same temperature AUTOMATICALLY. Prevost had a hard time introducing this in 1792.

All charges are continuously exchanging energy at an enormous rate (the Yang-Mills quantum field theory force-causing radiation exchange mechanism). We don't see it except as forces unless there is acceleration of a local charge, because there isequal energy going along all paths all the time which maintain equilibrium (equilibrium is naturally set up, because any particle radiating more rapidly soon loses net energy and its radiation emission rate therefore falls off until it equals the rate of radiation energy input it is receiving). A photon as we know it is an energy release due to a disturbance in the normal exchange process. If a charge accelerates, it radiates a "photon" which is a net increase in the natural continuousradiation exchange process. Photons carry momentum because they cause forces, since the exchange radiation itself is the mechanism of forces."The key evidence for this is that spinning charge should radiate according to Maxwell's equations. The spin of an electron means centripetal acceleration a = (v^2)/r where v is spin speed and r is radius. Acceleration of charge implies radiation of energy which can be calculated easily. It is an enormous non-oscillatory radiation power, sustained because there is equal amounts going both ways at once between any given two charges, so the TEM waves will propagate without requiring oscillation which would be needed of there was a one-way only transfer, or a net one-way transfer which explains why photons are oscillating waves unlike gauge boson exchange radiation. I have much about this on my home page and this blog.

The success of renormalization is quantum field theory where the limit of charge polarization is not infinite but just a small distance, implies that the vacuum can only be polarised in the strong electric field of an electron, and so there is a cutoff at long ranges where the field is too weak to free and polarize vacuum charge, which prevents the entire vacuum being polarised and cancelling normal electric charges completely.

Photons carry momentum because they cause forces, since the exchange radiation itself is the mechanism of forces. There is a degeneration which sets into physics after each new idea. If the new idea is accepted too easily by leaders in a field, it is never presented with the care and force of evidence which is required to make it widely accessible. Quantum mechanics suffered this - working at the abstract mathematical level but then never being developed into a causal mechanism with uncertainty being due to the effect of the aether on a small scalelike the brownian motion of pollen grains in air. This is tragic. So itis probably best in the long run to try to develop it as far as possible in every way through responding to criticisms and making improvements in clarity and simplicity, before hoping to gain widespread interest or mainstream publication. When I started a decade ago, I just wanted to publish the simple idea with the simple maths and leave it to the professional physicists in professorships to develop it. Now I'm certain that had it been published in say Classical and Quantum Gravity, it would not have led to anything but a lot of bigotry and argument which ignores the facts it predicted, like the lack of long range gravitational retardation of supernovae. It is not a pet theory, it is just a jigsaw puzzle with the pieces made entirely by others (from spacetime to Yang-Mills theory, etc.) which I've pieced together so that you see a picture which makes some predictions. However, the more work I do in trying to convince others, the more I get involved with it. At the moment there is nobody else to defend it, certainly not the close one-time friends like Catt who completely hate it for various non-scientific reasons (prejudice).

In science you can't ignore the facts available on your personal whim, you have to address the facts and instead of ignoring them build a better model - in detail - if you think they are being inadequately treated. There is no proved mechanism (you can't count as scientific the untested ad hoc speculative stuff), whatsoever for redshifts to be due to anything but recession, and the beauty of this is that it forces you to conclude that gravity is caused by an inward reaction. What you have to do really is to put aside prejudice for a few seconds and check the simplicity of the mechanism and proofs, and the accuracy of the predictions, see the list at http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d which is about six months out of date and should be supplemented by more recent additional results on this blog.

From: "Hooft 't G." G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl
To: "'Nigel Cook '"
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: Editor Jeremy Webb discredits integrity of the New Scientist

Please remove me from this list. I don't want my in-box to be polluted by all this nonsense about Maxwell's equations. The Maxwell equations correctly describe the propagation of signals as well as the conservation ofcharge in capacitors, period. Keep me out of any further discussions. G. 't Hooft.

Quantum field theorist Dr Chris Oakley says of 't Hooft and others: 'Unfortunately for me, though, most practitioners in the field appear not be be bothered about the inconsistencies in quantum field theory, and regard my solitary campaign against infinite subtractions at best as a humdrum tidying-up exercise and at worst a direct and personal threat to their livelihood. I admit to being taken aback by some of the reactions I have had. In the vast majority of cases, the issue is not even up for discussion.

'The explanation for this opposition is perhaps to be found on the physics Nobel prize web site. The five prizes awarded for quantum field theory are all for work that is heavily dependent on renormalization. These are ... 1999. 't Hooft and Veltman, "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions in physics."Presumably the prize is for their proof of the renormalizability of gauge theories. Quite simply, this is not good enough. The result of subtracting infinity from infinity is indeterminate (an elementary mathematical fact). One may fit finite "effective" theories within this indeterminacy, borrowing some of the clothes of quantum field theory, but one should not pretend that such theories are derived from quantum field theory. They are not: they are merely inspired by it.'

Proof that Hooft is a not telling the truth when claiming that Maxwell's equations are valid for capacitors: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html. That post proves the detailed dynamics of the Heaviside-step mechanism behind electric transmission and 'displacement current', but to briefly summarise some of the most basic aspects of the proof for scientifically illiterate and ignorant readers: Maxwell's displacement current equation says displacement current i = dD/dt where D is electric displacement (electric field strength E multiplied by the electric permittivity of the medium) which is a continuous differential equation and not a stepwise formula (Catt has a stepwise claim which is false, being based on the false Heaviside assumption that the front of a logic pulse is discontinuous, so don't confuse the stepwise charging based on discrete unit charges entering the capacitor plate, with Catt's false treatment of steps arising from reflections at each end of the capacitor plate). We know that when a capacitor charges the amount of charge is quantized into units of electron size, so it doesn't charge up the way Maxwell's formula says, except in an approximate statistical sense when the amount of stored is large in comparison to the charge of an electron.

We also know that a capacitor is an electron, and this is an example of the small capacitor where Maxwell's formula is totally wrong. We can therefore see in the failure of the displacement current equation of Maxwell the entire conflict between classical and quantum electrodynamics; in particular the photon predicted by Maxwell's equations is dependent upon Maxwell's false displacement current equation. Maxwell in free space has only two equations (two - namely the divergence equations for magnetic and electric fields - disappear when real charge can be ignored in the vacuum): the curl of the magnetic field and the curl of the electric field. The curl of the magnetic field in a vacuum is in classical physics determined by Maxwell's false equation for displacement current, while the curl of an electric field is given by Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction. The entire breakdown of classical physics in the quantum limit (small scale) is due to Maxwell's displacement current formula. Light is quantized because it is emitted from atoms which behave like quantum charging capacitors, which are entirely different to the false classical picture. It is sickening and shocking that Hooft is so ignorant when valuable information is given to him: to precisely point out where the error lies in the conflict between classical and quantum electrodynamics is a very valuable piece of knowledge. Everyone except Niels Bohr's mindset crowd of 'complementarity principle' thugs realises that progress relies in isolating the source of the problem and correcting it.

As I've shown, the true mechanism behind what Maxwell called 'displacement current' involves force causing radiation which establishes the causal mechanism of Yang-Mills quantum field theory as being due to real exchanges of momentum carrying radiation emitted and received continuously by spinning charges. All accelerating charges (spin constitutes centripetal acceleration) radiate. This mechanism was falsely dismissed by moron Niels Bohr who claimed charges would lose energy if they all radiated. This is an analogy to the denial of blackbody radiation by claiming that if all bodies radiated heat, they would get cold until they reached absolute zero, which is not observed. The error here is simple: bodies which radiate do not lose all their energy because they exchange energy and maintain equilibrium. So the walls of your room radiate energy at the table, which radiates energy at the walls, and things are stable. (Don't get confused: forces result from gauge boson radiation which is continuous exchange radiation and is not heat; when gauge boson radiation is received things get compressed slightly in the direction of motion - the FitzGerald contraction - as they accelerate continuously, not in quantum leaps. Gauge boson radiation determines charge and motion, whereas thermal radiation determines temperature. Obviously matter accelerated by gravity can get hot when a collision occurs - such as when a comet collides with a planet - but in mechanism the cause of the effects of gauge boson force mediating radiation and thermal radiation are entirely different.)

Definition of fascism relevant to the abuse from Jeremy Webb and Hooft, et al.:

‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived, but not abandoned.’ – Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.

'If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday ... beetles could do that ... he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!'

- self-taught mathematician Oliver Heaviside (left school at 13), Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1, p337, 1893.

RECAP: All particles are trapped "TEM waves", they are light speed Heaviside energy currents trapped in small looks by the gravitational field due to the energy of the electromagnetic field, which is strong on a tiny size scale of radius 2GM/c^2 (black hole radius), see my proof in Electronics world Aug 2002, parts on my site.

Here are three things that I can send from point A to point B:

(1) Heaviside continuous TEM "wave" energy (with nothing actually waving, so we should really call it a "Heaviside-Poynting slab of non-oscillating electromagnetic energy". This can only go from point A to point B uniformly without oscillation of there is also a similar thing simultaneously going the OPPOSITE way, from B to A, thereby adding to the electric field but cancelling the magnetic field vectors (which in wires creates the infinite self-inductance problem that prevents you from sending electric energy at light speed in a uniform pulse down a single wire, so that you must use at least a two wire transmission line to send mores code/logic).

(2) Small gravitationally-trapped Heaviside TEM energy, where the Heaviside-Poynting energy spins around with its direction of propagation forming a small closed loop of black hole radius = 2GM/c^2. This results in a spherically symmetrical electric field and magnetic dipole. Correcting for shielding by vacuum polarization gives the right electric charge and magnetic dipole moment, spin is like a Mobius strip for an electron, etc. Send one of these and you are sending an electron, which is like a particle because it is a small loop black hole.

(3) Oscillating Heaviside TEM wave (real oscillating waves), these can travel from place A to place B without requiring an equal simultaneous return from B to A to be superimposed on them to allow propagation. This is because the oscillatory nature of the wave permits it to go. Think about a sound wave as a crude analogy. If you just breath air out, no propagating wave occurs. You have to have a push followed by a pull, an outward pressure force followed by an inward sucton force, to get sound to work. Since area times pressure is outward force, Newton's 3rd law of motion explains sound waves. See my illustrated explanation here: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/outward-pressure-times-area-is-outward.html

To elaborate more on the exchange radiation mechanism, the biggest insight provided by Woit's Not Even Wrong for me was the simplification of loop quantum gravity:

'In loop quantum gravity, the basic idea is to use the standard methods of quantum theory, but to change the choice of fundamental variables that one is working with. It is well known among mathematicians that an alternative to thinking about geometry in terms of curvature fields at each point in a space is to instead think about the holonomy [whole rule] around loops in space. The idea is that in a curved space, for any path that starts out somewhere and comes back to the same point (a loop), one can imagine moving along the path while carrying a set of vectors, and always keeping the new vectors parallel to older ones as one moves along. When one gets back to where one started and compares the vectors one has been carrying with the ones at the starting point, they will in general be related by a rotational transformation. This rotational transformation is called the holonomy of the loop. It can be calculated for any loop, so the holonomy of a curved space is an assignment of rotations to all loops in the space.' - P. Woit, Not Even Wrong, Cape, London, 2006, p189.

This, the Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange process, is physically in perfect correspondence not to the 'loop' of the creation-annihilation-creation of matter (as illustrated at the top of this linked post), but rather to the 'loop' of the gauge boson radiation starting from one gravitational charge (mass), going to another, and returning to the first mass again. Because the energy carried by the gauge boson to cause force is conserved, we can extract physical predictions and dynamics from this model. For example, if you move masses apart, the gauge boson radiation energy at any instant is spread over larger distances and the force strength therefore falls as it spends more of its time in transit, and if the masses are receding from one another, the exchange radiation is redshifted so gravity falls off over cosmological distances. In particular, there is a correspondence between this physical picture of what happens in Yang-Mills quantum field theory and the way you get fundamental forces and the contraction effect in relativity, as explained in previous posts on this blog.

I can predict the maximum separation between electrons and positrons. The duration and maximum range of these charges is easily estimated: take the energy-time form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre. This is far enough to deflect electrons but not enough to be observed as vacuum radioactivity. Like Brownian motion, it introduces chaos on small scales, not large ones:

'... the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [eg scatter between virtual charges in the vacuum and real charges], as I proposed [in the 1934 book 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery']... There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg's or Bohr's subjectivist interpretation .' - Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

On average, statistically the separation may be only about half the maximum. So I'd predict that the vacuum contains on the order of (10^-12 m)^-3 = 10^36 electrons and positrons per cubic metre, which allows the computation of the energy of the ground state of the vacuum and gives a large vacuum energy density (far larger than the dark energy epicycle claimed falsely by the mainstream from the force-fitting of the lambda-CDM cosmological model to the supernovae redshift data; which are better explained by the gravity mechanism).

Woit's book "Not Even Wrong (N.E.W.)" gives indirect tests such as getting the vacuum energy in supersymmetry (unification energy) to agree with empirical observation. String theory is apparently way out by an astronomical factor of 10^113 (N.E.W. page 179). This is because of the small value of the vacuum energy given by the false Lambda-CDM cosmological model.

Argument against a structured vacuum due to success of renormalization: Renormalization is due to the adjustment of charge and mass for the contributions of the vacuum to real charge and mass. Around an electron, the virtual charges in the vacuum become polarized, and this reduces the electric field at a large distance because the polarization opposes the electric field from the electron core. Renormalization deals with the problem that the amount of polarization is not infinite. If the whole vacuum was free to be polarized around an electron, the vacuum polarization would increase until it cancelled exactly 100% of the electron's radial electric field. Hence the electron would have no electric charge at all observable from a distance. The physical explanation is that the polarization of the vacuum charges does not stretch out to infinity, it is limited in range to the space close to the electron core, and beyond a certain limit (corresponding to the lower limit energy cutoff in the renormalization math) no polarization can occur. Clearly, this physics shows that the vacuum charges which are polarized are actually CREATED in the strong electric field close to the electron core, where the electromagnetic energy density (which falls as inverse square of distance) is high enough to create free pairs of charges out of the vacuum. Quantum field theory includes annihilation and creation operators, and these must have a physical correspondence in reality. When you get well away from mass, there is no free virtual charge in the vacuum which can be polarized. If there were, all electric fields would be 100% cancelled, so there would be no real charges. Why can't people understand this? It is so simple. Why always call it a personal pet theory of the person saying it? There is no [free] zero-point energy, or renormalization would not work, because the lower limit cutoff would be zero and the polarization would extend infinitely and there would no electric charges, no atoms, no people, nothing.

This argument pertains to free, polarizable charge in the vacuum distant from matter; obviously if there was non-free charge present that could not be polarized to cancel out free charges, then you could still have some kind of structured or chaotic Dirac Sea. This would have to either be so chaotic that polarization could not be set up because the particles' motions are too energetic and random to be ordered at all by polarization at long distances from a charge (this is the most likely explanation as it has a full mechanism and makes predictions which are checkable and so far as tested so far, are in excellent agreement with experimental reality), or so structured such as by a lattice arrangement that weak electric fields are unable to polarize the charge because the charge remains stuck in the lattice unless a minimum work function energy is supplied to free the charges so that they can then be polarized (this is less likely because any lattice structure to the vacuum would seem to break down the isotropic freedom of radiation to go at the same velocity in all directions, if radiation is mediated by the virtual or 'displacement charge' currents in the vacuum as classical electromagnetism suggests).

So the evidence points to a chaotic vacuum which has so much energy it can't be ordered (polarized) to any significant extent except by very intense electromagnetic fields close to the core of an real (long-lived) electron or other long lived charge.

Disorder is the lowest state of any system, and higher energy states lead to more order. You have to expend energy to create order from chaos.

Gravitational potential energy is used up, for example, in working against entropy to create order. At 300,000 years after BB, everything was at the same temperature to within one part per so many thousands. Today, the interior of the sun is at 15,000,000 K, compared to spaces between galaxies which are at just 2.7 K. Hence the ordering which has been done by gravity to create dissimilarities in temperatures in the universe (when there were none significant at the beginning) has used up a vast amount of gravitational potential energy. From the gravity mechanism, the source of the gravitational potential energy is ultimately in the expansion of the universe itself; expansion causes gravity as a mass-shielded inward reaction force or radiation flowing in to fill volume being vacated by outward moving matter. Both of these last statements are in exact mathematical equivalence as proved at http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h and with illustrations at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/important-note-to-users-of-web-browers.html

For the vacuum to be ordered at the ground state would reverse the idea that you supply energy to a disordered state to create order. The idea of a stable structured vacuum like a lattice aether is incompatible with renormalization because for vacuum polarization to occur in strong fields near charges, you really are going to get in a mess from a structured orderly ground state. (How can there be any stable vacuum electron-positron lattice if there is freedom? What stops it from becoming chaotic? When an electron and a positron come slightly closer together, why don't they accelerate closer until they annihilate into gamma rays? In fact, this is what happens. It is chaotic. Since electrons and positrons are of equal mass, it is not possible to make a stable lattice. Heat and radiation would perturb the lattice, and the slightest effect of this sort would set off a massive collapse. The vacuum would explode. The vacuum is chaotic with an equilibrium of annihilation and creation going on all the time.)

Polarizing a gas of charges in a ground state which is chaos is straightforward. If you want to account for the way vacuum polarization works with an ordered, structed vacuum you have to specify an absolute energy at which the ordered structure breaks down to release polarizable free charges. This is incompatible with nature of renormalization, where it is scalable in some sense since you can take different cutoff energies depending on the situation. The key problem to be solved is to plot fundamental force strengths as a function of distance from the core of various particles (electron, quark), instead of plotting strength versus collision energy. See illustrations of forces as function of energy at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/02/heuristic-explanation-of-short-ranged_27.html.

The key problem is to produced a detailed vacuum polarization model which explains this, and to do so by plotting vacuum polarization (shielding) as a function of distance from a particle core. Then we need to work out how much energy is being tied up in causing the vacuum polarization, and use this quantitative calculation to work out how other forces vary. A loss of electromagnetic force strength at long distances, for example, will be make up for by the strong nuclear force at short distances. Conservation of energy will therefore allow a mechanistic, quantitative undersanding of how force causing energy is being used at all distances. You have to understand that Gauss' and Green's theorem is important; long-range redshifts aside, the total amount of exchange radiation energy which causes force that crosses the spherical area at any given radius around a particle, in a given interval of time, is the same regardless of the distance from the particle core. The amount of exchange radiation going towards a particle core is equal to that coming from the particle core where there is no acceleration of the particle.

Where there is an acceleration of the particle, the kinetic energy is supplied from the fact that during acceleration the rate the particle receives incoming exchange radiation will exceed the rate at which it radiates it. This will be tied up to other processes, such as the FitzGerald contraction of the particle due to its motion, the appearance of a magnetic field due to motion of charge (electrons have a magnetic dipole moment anyway form spin; I'm not referring to this), and time-dilation. I'm confident to have a good model for what happens in outline, but want to make a full mathematical model to account for gauge boson energy usage with differential equations. By understanding the vacuum phenomena quantitatively, force unification should be possible. All the evidence I've compiled indicates that the vacuum is totally chaotic in the ground state. See http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html for prediction of particle masses.

Regarding the continuous nature of gauge bosons (exchange radiation) that cause force, think about a (very long) slab of ongoing energy moving in distance. It reaches a distant charge (particle) and reflects back towards you, cancelling out the magnetic field of further outward going radiation that has yet to be reflected. You can understand it by sketching it; the exchange radiation is continuous like the Heaviside slab of energy: it flows from one particle to another without stopping, and when it reflects, there is still energy going in like a capacitor plate charging with Heaviside energy current: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

Prevost in 1792 didn't have to worry about how the equilibrium gets established at the beginning of time for temperature, which was just as well because that sort of question is ultimately going to take you back to initial conditions in the BB or whatever you call it 15,000,000,000 years ago. Things were more chaotic then than they are now; gravity tends to counter the third law of thermodynamics (the increase in entropy). Similarly, I don't need to worry too much at present about the chaotic way that gauge boson radiation exchange equilibrium was set up in the first place, causing gravity and making all electrons extremely similar in charge, etc. All I need to do is to make some connections to get the ball rolling, and produce some quantitative predictions. It will be extremely sad if I have to work out an enormous amount of this stuff by myself, with everyone else finding some metaphysical or prejudicial reason to shy away. Certainly the setting up of gauge boson exchange radiation would occur prior to the fusion of light elements in the BB, so we are talking of events within a matter of seconds after the universe began, maybe small fractions of a second. I would deal with that by computer simulations, varying the initial conditions until the output matched empirical data.

Someone claims that LeSage's gravity mechanism was disproved on thermodynamics. This alleged disproof I believe was due to Maxwell (I went into this in depth on my blog sometime ago but can't remember the details if you are interested see the blog post and comments for yourself: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/03/george-louis-lesage-newtonian_26.html): "Today the model of gravity proposed by Fatio is known almost exclusively as "Lesage's theory", with Fatio relegated to a footnote, so Fatio was ultimately denied even his rightful recognition as the originator of this idea, which in any case has long since been discredited on thermodynamic grounds."

This is a false claim. Gauge boson exchange radiation does not get converted into heat as the critics (Maxwell, etc.) of LeSage claimed it would; gauge bosons causing gravitation interact with the Higgs field particles these are massive particles which smooth out the radiation exchange and prevent heat being generated; Yang-Mills exchange radiation for electroweak theory which includes electromagnetism is well established by the discovery of the W+, W- and Zo gauge bosons at CERN in 1983 and electromagnetism exchange radiation caused forces don't result in charged bodies getting hot because it is not oscillating heat-type radiation that is being exchanged.

Ivor Catt falsely claims electricity has nothing to do with wires (which merely "somehow guide" the TEM wave), and is all occurring in space around the wires. You have got to remember that Catt and probably Heaviside draw the Heaviside-Poynting vector as three orthagonal arrows (each at 90 degrees to the other two), one representing light speed propagation of the energy, one representing electric field, and one representing magnetic field.

In fact, the correct way to draw it is different. You draw the propagation direction arrow, and radiating out from that in all directions (not merely one direction) you draw a bunch of electric field arrows. Then you draw circular loops around the direction of propagation to represent the magnetic field vector.

Now because Catt can't even draw the vector properly, he can't grasp that it is meaningless or misleading his way. What you have is energy going along the electric field lines, being exchanged to cause forces. You need this because Yang-Mills U(1) electromagnetism works and tells you that electric charge is mediated by some kind of light speed radiation.

Yang-Mills theory doesn't directly tell you the frequency of the radiation. (Some people say the exchange radiation is like Casimir force radiation, so there is always one wavelength between two charges. Hence you can calculate from that a frequency for the radiation. Thus, if two charges are x metres apart, then the gauge boson radiation on this hypothesis has a wavelength of x metres and a frequency given by the wave axiom of f = c/x, where c is the wave speed. However the assumption about radiation wavelength equalling separation distance is a TOTAL LIE, because there is no physical basis for it. It is like the "Planck length" which has no physical basis at all and is massive compared to the black hole radius of an electron, which has basis as proved by my aug02 EW article etc.)

The frequency is apparently zero. The evidence is that it doesn't oscillate because (1) it is in exchange equilibrium so it doesn't need oscillation to make it propagate in free space (magnetic field inductance effects cancel because equal energy is coming the opposite direction and cancelling out the magnetic field inductance), and (2) there is no mechanism for it to oscillate periodically because it is being emitted by a spinning loop which is not a periodic phenomena; although spin it has centripetal acceleration a = (c^2)/r which makes the charge radiate energy, it is a continuous radiation because the charge spin is just continuous and not oscillating.

But this concept is not definite. You could alternatively argue that the exchange radiation is actually a very hard, high energy, form of gamma radiation which can't be detected other than as fundamental forces because it is so penetrating that it doesn't interact like normal radiation. So gauge boson radiation is either too low frequency to be detected as oscillating electromagnetic radiation (ie frequency f = zero) or too high frequency to be detected as the highest frequency electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays). (I'm certain the frequency of gauge bosons is not equal to f = c/x where x is distance between two charges, because I've put strong charges x metres apart and not been able to measure any radio effects of frequency f = c/x between them even when inducing temporary interruptions using sheets of metal. It is very easy to detect 1 metre or 10 cm radio waves.) However this is too problematic, because such ultra high energy, ultra high frequency, highly penetrating gamma rays radiation would not interact enough to cause gravity and you would end up with a horsesh*t theory (like the many ideas on the internet that neutrinos cause gravity in a pushing context) with abitrary "magical" characteristics chosen as fiddles to make the theory work, not the use of natural facts which are self-consistent and follow from empirical evidence. Neutrinos can't cause gravity because the abundance needed to do so would make them detectable in far, far, far, far higher numbers by nuclear reactions than the accurate measurements reveal to be the case. So neutrino cause gravity is a lie.

Normally you would think that extremely low frequency waves are easily stopped and higher frequencies are more penetrating, so you might imagine crudely that gauge boson radiation of frequency f = zero (no oscillation) would have no penetrating power at all and would be unable to penetrate through the earth to cause gravitation in electro-gravity unification. However, low frequencies are more penetrating than high frequencies which is why submerged nuclear submarines in the conductive salt water ocean use very long aerials and ELF (extremely low frequencies) to communicate: the earth's skin depth for transmission of radio waves is very large for very low frequencies. Penetration for frequencies below about 1 kHz is proportional to something like 1/(square root of frequency), so as frequency falls toward zero, electromagnetic radiation becomes ever more penetrating (obviously it can't penetrate the actual physical cross-sectional areas of mass such as quarks and electrons; we're talking about attenuation due to the absorption of energy by means of the radio wave inducing oscillations of electrons, not barrier shielding in which the radiation is simply reflected by masses).

So I'm 100% certain from all evidence that gauge boson radiation is continuous exchange radiation with no oscillation. It represents both electric and gravitational fields, the difference between these being due to whether the addition of electric field is a straight line summation across the universe (gravity, statistical mean strength = g) or a random/drunkards walk between all similar charges due to the random spatial distribution of two types of electric charge (electromagnetism, statistical mean strength = g.[root N], where N is number of similar charges in universe).

If muons are 205 times the mass of electrons (or whatever), then they are only 1/205 or 0.5% as abundant as electrons and positrons in the vacuum, assuming that they are equally to be formed. The shorter lifetime does allow us to make estimates. I calculated as below that for electron-positron pairs the mean life is ~10^-21 second; so the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre. For muons, this time and range would be reduced by a factor of 205 or whatever. For quarks, the reduction factor is still greater.

So for practical purposes, electron-positron pairs dominate as sources of transistory electric charge in the vacuum, and heavier particles have a negligible contribution. However, heavier particles like muons and quarks are more important in polarization very near a real quark, where the electromagnetic field of the real quark is strong. Is it a case that the local field energy close to a real quark creates heavy particles around it by causing the polarized vacuum electron-positron pairs to undergo more violent collisions, or is it a case that there is a mix up between theory ad experiment?The only place that quantum field theory could be wrong is if the interpretation of the experiments and the interpretation of the corresponding theory are both wrong the same way. Certainly it is an error to talk of fundamental force strengths in terms of collision energy (which is the mainstream error) because you are mixing two effects up in this: (1) the effect of getting closer to particles when they are smashed together harder, and (2) the effect of actually making fresh vacuum particles in the collision process itself.

Effect (2) has the danger that what you measure in a particle acceleration is not pure and unadulterated effect (1). There is pollution from effect (2), so you cannot rationally claim that higher collision energies is merely showing you what the fundamental forces are like at shorter distances. There is also "noise" in the data from nuclear shrapnel, in the sense of particles created by the collisions themselves, which interfere in a way you would not see if you could gently probe what the forces were like at very short distances. The analysis which corrects for this muddle is what I'm working on when time permits.In the similar sort of way, we can't see vast distances in space without simultaneously looking back in time, so we are not seeing merely how the universe looks at vast distances, we must always remember we are seeing it at earlier times. It is tragic that Hubble never even bothered to see what his result would look like as a variation in velocity with time, ie, an acceleration of a sort. If he had, gravity mechanism may well have been discovered soon after 1929. Instead nonsense has hardened into a bigoted orthodoxy.

Because the rest mass energy of muons etc are so much higher than electrons, they exist for a correspondingly smaller period of time and dominate the vacuum to a lesser extent than electrons, according to the uncertainty principle (which as Popper says is just a statistical scatter formula, the average lifespan is just the average time between collisions causing annihilation; no strange metaphysics is required by the known facts, contrary to Bohr/Bore).
At the close distances where polarization of the vacuum shields electromagnetism, the energy used in this way (absorbed/attenuated/shielded) becomes the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force: thus the physical basis for the unification of forces is the conservation of gauge boson energy, as explained previously on this blog.

Woit on his blog has said tha the number one problem facing theoretical physics is understanding the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, ie why massive weak force mediating gauge bosons (but not the gauge boson of electromagnetism, referred to vaguely and possibly confusingly/misleadingly as the photon) have mass and short range.

I've said that the key is the Zo gauge boson which is the massive weak force counterpart of the electromagnetic photon. The Zo has something like 91 GeV rest mass (OK David, you might not like E=mc2 being used here, but I can't help it that the units for mass used in nuclear physics are energy units).

I've shown at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html how to justify thinking of alpha, the fine structure number 1/137... (approx.) as the reduction factor in the electromagnetic force which is caused by the polarization of charge around the electron core that makes renormalization necessary in quantum field theory. I can calculate the electromagnetic force from Heisenberg and other laws and it is 137... or 1/alpha times the known Coulomb law for electrons. Hence the long range force we observe (Coulomb) is attenuated by ~137 due to vacuum charge polarization.

Now the clever bit. The vacuum "Higgs field" is supposed to include a massive yet chargeless "Higgs boson" which causes all mass in the universe, the mass of all leptons, quarks, etc. Let's assume that the particle has already in a sense been discovered and is either the Zo itself or is closely associated to or paired with the Zo. This may in part or in whole reverse the mainstream picture, which claims that the mass of the Zo (and all other particles) is given by external Higgs bosons.

We can make additional predictions using the Z boson of electroweak theory, which is unique because it has rest mass despite being an uncharged fundamental particle! You can easily see how charged particles acquire mass (by attracting a cloud of vacuum charges, which mire them, creating inertia and a response to the spacetime fabric background field which is gravity). But how does a non-composite neutral particle, the Z, acquire mass? This is essentially the question of electroweak symmetry breaking at low energy. The Z is related to the photon, but is different in that it has rest mass and therefore has a limited range, at least below electroweak symmetry breaking energy.

Z mass model: a vacuum particle with the mass of the electroweak neutral gauge boson (Z) semi-empirically predicts all the masses in the Standard Model. You use data for a few particles to formulate the model, but then it predicts everything else, including making many extra checkable predictions! Here's how. If the particle is inside the polarization range of the electron, there is still its own polarization shell separating it from the real electron core. Because of the shielding of its own shell of vacuum polarization and from the spin of the electron core, the mass it gives the core is equal to M(z)/(2.Pi x 137) = M(z).alpha/(2.Pi) ~ 105.7 MeV. Hence the muon!

Next, consider the lower energy state where the mass is outside the polarization zone (at a large distance). In that case, the coupling between the central core charge and the mass at B is reduced by the additional distance (which empirically is a factor of ~1.5 reduction) and also the 137 or 1/alpha polarization attenuation factor. HenceM(z).(alpha)^2 /(1.5 x 2.Pi) ~ 0.51 MeV. Hence the electron!

Generalizing, for n real charge cores (such as a bare lepton or 2-3 bare quarks), and N masses of Z boson mass at a position within the polarization zone, nearby to the core (a high energy, high mass state), the formula for predicting the observable mass of the elementary particle is: M(e).n(N+1)/(2.alpha)= M(z).n(N+1)(alpha)/(6.Pi).

The higher the energy density of the vacuum, the heavier the virtual particles. However, from the unification arguments at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html , electrons and quarks are related: quarks are pairs or triads of electrons bound and trapped by the short range vacuum attraction effect, and because quarks are close enough to share the same polarization shells, the latter are 2 or 3 times stronger in pairs or triads of quarks, creating apparent fractional electric charges (stronger polarization type shielding causes weaker observed charge at a long distance).

The increase in the magnetic moment which results for leptons is reduced by the 1/alpha or 137 factor due to shielding from the virtual positron's own polarization zone, and is also reduced by a factor of 2Pi because the two particles are aligned with opposite spins: the force gauge bosons being exchanged between them hit the spinning particles on the edges, which have a side-on length which is 2Pi times smaller than the full circumference of the particle. To give a real world example, it is well known that by merely spinning a missile about its axis you reduce the exposure of the skin of the missile to weapons by a factor of Pi. This is because the exposure is measured in energy deposit per unit area, and this exposed area is obviously decreased by a factor of Pi if the missile is spinning quickly. For an electron, the spin is half integer, so like a Mobius strip (paper loop with half a turn), you have to rotate 720 degrees (not 360) to complete a 'rotation' back to the starting point. Therefore the effective exposure reduction for a spinning electron is 2Pi, rather than Pi.Hence by combining the polarization shielding factor with the spin coupling factor, we can account for the fact that the lepton magnetic moment increase due to this effect is approximately 1/(2.Pi x 137) = alpha/(2.Pi) added on to the 1 Bohr magneton of the bare real electron. This gives the 1.0116 Bohr magnetons result for leptons.
Compare this to the predictive but obscurely abstract mathematical approach of Nobel Laureates Feynman, Tomonago, and Schwinger:

Julian Schwinger, On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization, Phys. Rev. vo. 82 (1951), p. 664:'This paper is based on the elementary remark that the extraction of gauge invariant results from a formally gauge invariant theory is ensured if one employs methods of solution that involve only gauge covariant quantities. We illustrate this statement in connection with the problem of vacuum polarization by a prescribed electromagnetic field. The vacuum current of a charged Dirac field, which can be expressed in terms of the Green's function of that field, implies an addition to the action integral of the electromagnetic field. Now these quantities can be related to the dynamical properties of a "particle" with space-time coordinates that depend upon a proper-time parameter. The proper-time equations of motion involve only electromagnetic field strengths, and provide a suitable gauge invariant basis for treating problems. Rigorous solutions of the equations of motion can be obtained for a constant field, and for a plane wave field. A renormalization of field strength and charge, applied to the modified lagrange function for constant fields, yields a finite, gauge invariant result which implies nonlinear properties for the electromagnetic field in the vacuum. The contribution of a zero spin charged field is also stated. After the same field strength renormalization, the modified physical quantities describing a plane wave in the vacuum reduce to just those of the maxwell field; there are no nonlinear phenomena for a single plane wave, of arbitrary strength and spectral composition. The results obtained for constant (that is, slowly varying fields), are then applied to treat the two-photon disintegration of a spin zero neutral meson arising from the polarization of the proton vacuum. We obtain approximate, gauge invariant expressions for the effective interaction between the meson and the electromagnetic field, in which the nuclear coupling may be scalar, pseudoscalar, or pseudovector in nature. The direct verification of equivalence between the pseudoscalar and pseudovector interactions only requires a proper statement of the limiting processes involved. For arbitrarily varying fields, perturbation methods can be applied to the equations of motion, as discussed in Appendix A, or one can employ an expansion in powers of the potential vector. The latter automatically yields gauge invariant results, provided only that the proper-time integration is reserved to the last. This indicates that the significant aspect of the proper-time method is its isolation of divergences in integrals with respect to the proper-time parameter, which is independent of the coordinate system and of the gauge. The connection between the proper-time method and the technique of "invariant regularization" is discussed. Incidentally, the probability of actual pair creation is obtained from the imaginary part of the electromagnetic field action integral. Finally, as an application of the Green's function for a constant field, we construct the mass operator of an electron in a weak, homogeneous external field, and derive the additional spin magnetic moment of α/2π magnetons by means of a perturbation calculation in which proper-mass plays the customary role of energy.'

More information on QFT: see Prof. Mark Srednicki's textbook at http://gabriel.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/MS-QFT-11Feb06.pdf and the corrected Prof. Alvarez-Gaume introduction at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0510/0510040.pdf (It turns out that that textbook (1st ed) was wrong as it ignored all the particle creation-annihilation loops which can be created at energies between 0.511 MeV and 92 GeV. Motl emailed the Professor then replied: "Prof. Alvarez-Gaume has written me that it was a pedagogical simplification, which I fully understand and endorse, and in a future version of the text, they will have not only the right numbers but even the threshold corrections!" The second edition corrects the error, with a footnote thanking Motl, who I had informed of the error since I don't get replies from most professors when using hotmail.)

Try thinking about a sealed large tube of water with a brick at one end. Turn the tube upside down and the brick moves to the other end. At the same time, an equal amount of water is flowing around the brick to prevent a void ("cavitation" in nautical terms) being created. If a similar volume of water is prevented from flowing around the moving brick at the same speed but in the opposite direction to the motion of the brick (for example by making the tube the same cross-sectional size and shape as the brick and water tight by rubber seals at the edge), the brick doesn't move very easily! This is because it would have to compress the water before it and to cavitate (create a vacuum in) the water behind it, in order to move. The same sort of thing must occur whenever a real particle moves in the vacuum medium: a fundamental particle of the vacuum and a real particle can't exist at exactly the same place and time, so one must push the other out of the way. This gives the gravity mechanism as you get a mechanism for Newton's 3rd law in a fluid aether: http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h

Now electroweak stuff: the thing is, the "electroweak symmetry is broken" at low [collision] energies, whereby "low energies" means at large distances from the core of fundamental particles, because the higher the energy of collision, the closer particles approach before bouncing off.

The "broken symmetry" is the fact that the gauge boson photon of electromagnetism has no [rest] mass and infinite range, whereas the weak force gauge bosons such as Zo, W+ and W- all rest have mass and short range. [Symmetry (unbroken) = electromagnetic and weak bosons all having zero mass, infinite range.] This is one reason why the "higgs field" which is commonly thought of as an aether in modern physics behind the scenes, is probably similar to a sea of weak force gauge bosons.

The standard picture is as follows: the Higgs field exists everywhere as the spacetime fabric or ether. It stops the weak gauge bosons within a short distance, and provides the masses of quarks and leptons by the mechanism of their bouncing off the virtual charges of the Higgs field. Because the weak force has a maximum range of 10^-18 metre, the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (assuming light speed force mediation, so that time multiplied by speed of light equals this maximum distance) tells us the energy of the weak force mediator – it is 250 GeV, equivalent to 10^-24 kilogram.

This energy, 250 GeV, is close to the observed mass-energy of the weak gauge bosons (W-, W+, and Z). It is also the energy of the Higgs bosons. The weak force symmetry (which exists for energies above 250 GeV) breaks spontaneously at 250 GeV, because of the Higgs mechanism. Below 250 GeV, there is no weak force symmetry because particles have masses since they are mired in the Higgs field which causes inertia. Above 250 GeV, particles become effectively massless, simply because they then have more energy than the Higgs bosons. (By analogy, it is possible to move through syrup if you have enough energy to overcome the sticky binding forces holding together the syrup molecules, but you get stuck after a short distance if you don’t have enough energy!)

Electroweak theory was developed by Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam. They showed that early in the big bang, there were three weak gauge bosons and a neutral boson, and that the photon which now exists is a combination of two of the original gauge bosons purely because this avoids being stopped by the weak charge of the vacuum; other combinations are stopped so the photon exists uniquely by the filtering out of other weak gauge bosons. Because the photon does not interact with the weak charge of the vacuum, it only interacts with electric charges. The vacuum is composed of weak charge, but not electric charge, so the photon can penetrate any distance of vacuum without attenuation. This is why electric forces are only subject to geometrical dispersion (inverse-square law).

These developments in the 1960s led to the Standard Model of fundamental particles. In this model, the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces all become similar at around 10^14 GeV, but beyond that they differ again, with electromagnetic force becoming stronger than the strong and weak forces. In 1974, Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow suggested a way to unify all three forces into a single superforce at an energy at 10^16 GeV. This ‘grand unified theory’ of all forces apart from gravity has the three forces unified above 10^16 GeV but separated into three separate forces at lower energies. The way they did this was by ‘supersymmetry’, doubling the particles of the Standard Model, so that each fundamental particle has a supersymmetric partner. The energy of 10^16 GeV is beyond testing on this planet and in this galaxy, so the only useful prediction they could make was that the proton should decay with a half-life somewhat smaller than has already been ruled out by experiment.

Edward Witten developed the current mainstream superstring model, which has 10/11 dimensions with 6/7 rolled up into strings. The history of string theory begins in the 1920s with the Kaluza-Klein theory as I’ve already explained above. Kaluza showed that adding a fifth dimension to general relativity units gravity and electromagnetism tensors, while Klein showed that the fifth dimension could remain invisible to us as a rolled up string. In the late 1960s, it was shown that the strings could vibrate and represent fundamental particle energies. In 1985, Philip Candelas, Gary Horowitz, Andy Strominger and Edward Witten suggested that 10-D string theory with the 6 extra dimensions curled up into a Calabi-Yau manifold would model the standard model, preserving supersymmetry and yet giving rise to an observable 4-D spacetime in which there is the right amount of difference between left and right handed interactions to account for the parity-violating weak force.

This ‘breakthrough’ speculative invention was called ‘superstrings’ and led to the enormous increase in research in string theory. Finally, in March 1995, Edward Witten proved that 10-D strongly coupled superstring theory is equivalent to 11-D weakly coupled supergravity. Apparently because it was presented in March, Witten named this new 10/11-D mathematics ‘M-theory’.

Witten then made the misleading claim that ‘string theory predicts gravity’:

‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity’: false claim by Edward Witten in the April 1996 issue of Physics Today, repudiated by Roger Penrose on page 896 of his book Road to Reality, 2004: ‘in addition to the dimensionality issue, the string theory approach is (so far, in almost all respects) restricted to being merely a perturbation theory’. String theory does not predict anything scientific whatsoever for the strength constant of gravity, G!

This means that my work on gravitational force mechanism which does predict gravity correctly is suppressed: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook
All the evidence for dark matter and dark energy is from cosmology models, so why can't the basis of cosmology be re-examined? It is entirely possible to incorporate into general relativity a model for gravity which eliminates the dark matter problem (which is due to the false assumption that gravity has no cause within the universe, correcting that just leaves invisible dust contributions), and the dark energy problem results again from ad hoc force-fitting the theory to the observations. This is not the way to do physics. The theory should not keep getting fiddles to make it fit the facts, that is what went wrong with epicycles in ancient cosmology.

3, 4, 5, 10, 11 dimensions:i if you look up at the stars tonight, remember the nearest is over 4 years away (unless you count the sun as a star, in which case 8.3 minutes away). If you quote a distance you are fooling yourself, because everything you see in in the past. Something you see 1 metre away is 3.3 nanoseconds in the past. Spacetime is real because not only visible light itself, but also the physical forces such as electromagnetism and gravity, travel at the speed of light. So when the 'recession speeds of distant stars increase with distance' you know Hubble is not thinking about the fourth dimension, time. The increase in speeds is not just with apparent distance, but with time past. Any variation of speed with time is an acceleration, which implies an effective outward force. Anyway, general relativity treats time (multiplied by the speed of light to get distance units) as a dimension, albeit as a Pythagorean spacetime resultant so that its square has an opposite sign to the squares of the three other dimensions. It works mathematically like a fourth dimension. The fifth dimension is the Kaluza-Klein dimension, which reconciles Maxwell's basic electromagnetism (the light wave, based on the two curl equations) with general relativity, and says the extra dimension is curled up to give a string particle. The first four dimensions can be viewed as a brane on the five dimensional universe, or as a hologram of the five dimensional universe. It seems that these two differing perspectives are all mathematically equivalent and equally valid physically. The issue then arises that there is a completely different formulation of string theory which is necessary, and involves 10 or 11 dimensional spacetime. This is due to the need to explain supersymmetry in the Standard Model of fundamental particle interactions. Supersymmetry doubles the number of fundamental particles by introducing a 'super partner' for each one. The original particle and its super partner are related by supersymmetry transformation. This transformation transforms a fermion into its partnered super boson, changing the spin from a half integer to an integer value (in terms of h over twice pi, obviously). Because of supersymmetry, even the virtual particles which produce the 'Higgs field' (or spacetime fabric) have supersymmetric partners. Unless supersymmetry is broken, the virtual particles have a mass which is the exact opposite of their super partners, so the Higgs field itself has no mass. However there is a slight break of supersymmetry, and this gives rise to mass. The superpartners have very large masses and existing particle accelerators do not have sufficient energy to detect them. Supersymmetry makes the forces described by the Standard Model - the electro-weak and the strong nuclear force - unify into a superforce at an energy of 10^16 GeV. However it is a lie as I've proved.

General relativity (which is empirical Newtonian gravity with empirically based corrections for mass energy and field energy contributions to gravity and also the vital contraction which is a correction for conservation of gravitational potential energy, plus the incorporation of the fact - ignored by Newton - that there is no instantaneous action at a distance, hence gravity fields take time to travel and variations propagate at light speed when a mass moves) tells us that there is no friction/drag (resistance to velocity), only resistance to acceleration from the bulk displacement effect I described:

‘… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Professor Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

NOTE THE "PERFECT FLUID" DEFINITION. Now see the PERFECT FLUID in Maxwell's treatise:

‘The ... action of magnetism on polarised light [discovered by Faraday not Maxwell] leads ... to the conclusion that in a medium ... is something belonging to the mathematical class as an angular velocity ... This ... cannot be that of any portion of the medium of sensible dimensions rotating as a whole. We must therefore conceive the rotation to be that of very small portions of the medium, each rotating on its own axis [spin] ... The displacements of the medium, during the propagation of light, will produce a disturbance of the vortices ... We shall therefore assume that the variation of vortices caused by the displacement of the medium is subject to the same conditions which Helmholtz, in his great memoir on Vortex-motion, has shewn to regulate the variation of the vortices [spin] of a perfect fluid.’ - Maxwell’s 1873 Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Articles 822-3

'When one looks back over the development of physics, one sees that it can be pictured as a rather steady development with many small steps and superimposed on that a number of big jumps.... These big jumps usually consist in overcoming a prejudice.'- P. A. M. Dirac, 'Development of the Physicist's Conception of Nature', in J. Mehra (ed.), The Physicist's Conception of Nature, D. Reidel Pub. Co., 1973.

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 German publication, ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation of quantum mechanics.’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303. Note: statistical scatter gives the energy form of Heisenberg’s equation, since the vacuum is full of gauge bosons carrying momentum like light, and exerting vast pressure; this gives the foam vacuum.

Supersymmetry as currently postulated with string theory, supergravity and supersymmetric (SUSY) partners is horse-manure. But the idea that forces unify at high energy (close to the particle core) is not so stupid. Evidence at low energies shows that electromagnetic and weak force strengths increase with collision energy (eg electromagnetism is 7% stronger at 91 GeV collisions of electrons, because the polarised shielding of the vacuum is breached slightly, so there is less shielding by the polarized vacuum, and the electric charge seen is higher), and that the strong nuclear force falls with increasing collision energy. Therefore, at some high energy (higher than achievable in accelerators) they will be converge. Hence unification quantitatively. Qualitatively, the question is what happens to the gauge bosons when unification of strengths occurs? In other words, are the gauge bosons seen at low energy (where symmetries are broken) different aspects of the unified gauge boson, or is it the other way around and maybe at unification there is a soup of many gauge bosons (all those we know)? The second alternative is ugly and I'd like to think that the answer is more subtle, with a few sophisticated gauge bosons whose properties depend on the energy of the vacuum and the electromagnetic fields nearby. We know the photon contains electric field energy which is 50% positive and 50% negative (oscillating).

Viewed like this, electroweak symmetry breaking becomes clearer. The W+ and W- gauge bosons are possibly vacuum charges having mass. The Zo is possibly a combination of the half a W+ and half a W- type field boson. The photon has no mass since it is made of real electromagnetic energy, not virtual electromagnetic energy like the Zo.

The difference between a vacuum "virtual" electron and a real electron is that the real electron has a real energy level. It is not simply living on borrowed time like the "virtual" vacuum electron, which is annihilated after ~ 10^-21 second.

I think if we reduce confusion by discriminating between all vacuum charges as "virtual" and all observable long-lived matter as "real" charge, we will get the answer very simply:

(1) Bosons with mass and/or charge (in other words the weak force Z and W bosons) are "virtual" vacuum (Higgs field/aether) particles; bosons without these are what we call real photons. This is because the real photons are moving through the vacuum like waves in water. The water has mass, but the wave disturbance itself is just transferring energy at the wave speed and it doesn't have real rest mass.

(2) At high energy, you get the equivalent of a shock wave which creates more of a symmetry (because there is no drag in the "perfect fluid" spacetime fabric, the shock wave analogy leads to a light wave type effect whereby the weak force Z and W bosons can behave like photons without (a) attenuation (miring in the virtual charge sea) because the virtual charge sea moves too slowly to interfere with it at high energy when it is going near light speed, and (b) mass (mass is caused by miring which is prevented by extremely high energies).

You could say the second effect is evidence of epola: the lattice causes electroweak symmetry breaking. At low energy, W and Z particles are mired by the lattice like molasses or honey. But at higher energy (above electroweak unification energy), the W and Z particles are so energetic that the lattice breaks down and simply offers no resistance.

The perfect fluid analogy is not "lucky" or ad hoc speculation; it is empirically justified by the non-ad hoc results of general relativity (not the cosmological ad hoc nonsense like steady state in 1916, and everything else that general relativity has been abused with), it is a result of general relativity which is justified by correct local predictions of general relativity. As I quoted, it is ALSO a conclusion for electromagnetism from Maxwell's treatise.

Take the energy-time form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre.

The key thing to do would be to calculate the transmission of gamma rays in the vacuum. Since the max separation of charges is 10^-12 m, the vacuum contains at least 10^36 charges per cubic metre. If I can calculate that the range of gamma radiation in such a dense medium is 10^-12 metre, I'll have substantiated the mainstream picture. The shielding of gamma radiation in ordinary matter depends on the gamma ray energy. [Above 1 MeV gamma ray in atomic based matter energy, you get pair-production by nuclei influencing shielding, which is not of interest for the vacuum where we are mainly dealing with electrons (they have a much longer life in the vacuum than any heavier particles, according to Heisenberg's energy-time uncertainty formula).] The actual energy of the gamma rays we are dealing with in the vacuum is I expect either 0.511 MeV or 1.022 MeV, i.e., exactly once or twice the rest-mass energy of an electron (because the gamma rays come from electron-positron annihilation). Normally you get two gamma rays when an electron and positron annhilate (the gamma rays go off in opposite directions), so the energy is probably 0.511 MeV.

This is actually close to the average gamma ray energy of fission products fallout a few days after fission so the shielding is perfectly understood. The penetration of such radiation depends almost entirely upon the Compton effect, the absorption cross-section for which is calculated by the Klein-Nishina formula of quantum mechanics.

All I have to do is to find the mean free path for 0.511 MeV gamma rays (Compton effect scattering of gamma rays by electrons or positrons) in a medium of 10^36 electrons/m^3. I could do this by looking up the distance for the mean free path of cuch gamma rays in water (as given in books on water shielding for nuclear waste) and then scale the distance according to the density of water in electrons/m^3 as compared to the vacuum which has 10^36 electrons/m^3. I'll do this when I have a chance. It is possible I'll be way off and that the energy of the gamma rays is much higher (it can't be lower than 0.511 MeV). The point is I think you have only half the picture, ie that dealing with vacuum effects that emerge after charges are created but before they annihilate back into gamma rays.

The speed of light is involved because trapped energy current is going round in a closed loop (ie spinning) at light speed, like all TEM/Heaviside energy. You get the radius 2GM/c^2 from general relativity or simply from the orbital speed required to trap light:

1. acceleration due to gravity, a = MG/r^2

2. centripetal acceleration of energy with speed c and mass equivalent M (by E=Mc^2) going in a loop of radius r is: a = (c^2)/r

3. Setting 1 and 2 equal: a = MG/r^2 = c^2/r. Multiply this out by r and we get: MG/r = c^2, so r = GM/c^2.

4. Because classical physics is out by a factor of 2 due to kinetic energy at low velocity being only E = (1/2)Mv^2 compared to Einstein's E = Mc^2, the value of the mass we are using in the classical derivation of r = GM/c^2 is too low by a factor of 2, so we need to double the right hand side to make it relativistic: r = 2GM/c^2.

Gravitation is trapping the energy into the small loop it: an inward force from the radiation which is hitting it and bouncing back like a recoil. This gives rise to force. The inward force in reaction to outward recession of matter by Newton's 3rd law is F = ma where m is mass of receding matter (mass of universe, with a correction for the higher density of universe at immense distances where the recession speeds are greatest but before the energy loss/redshift due to recession of the source of the radiation becomes so great that it starts to cut off the inward reaction), and a is acceleration = variation in speeds of recession (0 to c is linear with times past of 0 to 15,000,000,000 years), hence a = Hc where H is Hubble constant in reciprocal seconds (Hubble constant is velocity/distance = 1/time units) = ~ 10^-10 ms^-2.The outward force is thus on the order of 10^43 Newtons. It is massive! The inward force is the same, a massive force! It keeps electrons trapped as black holes. For more on the experimental evidence for black hole ie gravitationally trapped energy currents such as ELECTRONS etc. (which have an event horizon radius 2GM/c^2 ~ 10^-51 m, which is much smaller than Planck size, refuting string theory speculation), see my Aug 2002 Electronics World article and my home page on internet http://feynman137.tripod.com/#a, and also see the internet page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron. I don't like Maxwell's theory because it leads to the Raleigh-Jeans law for the spectrum of light which is false and was replaced by Planck's quantum theory. I think the displacement current formula Maxwell uses is simplistic, and that he has not got to the underlying mechanism here: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

Since the atom contains separated positive and negative charge with an intervening vacuum, it is a charged vacuum dielectric capacitor for purposes of dealing with the way it gains and loses energy. The electron resists getting an increase in charge, and jumps in kinetic energy and distance from nucleus instead. If Yang-Mills is right for electromagnetism (there is plenty of evidence from electroweak theory experiments that it is correct so far as it goes), there electromagnetic forces are due to continual exchanges of radiation between charges. The radiation is TEM wave radiation, transverse electromagnetic. It doesn't have to wave when it is being exchanged in an equilibrium situation, because that is like a direct current (Morse tap or logic step) Heaviside signal being propagated with currents in opposite directions down each of a pair of parallel conductors (a "transmission line" in electronics jargon). With Yang-Mills exchange radiation, the equal energy exchange in opposite directions cancels out the magnetic field curls from each component, so vacuum magnetic self inductance effects do not stop propagation by being infinite: they are zero. Hence you don't need to have the gauge bosons oscillate to be exchanged between charges. Oscillation (where the electric field varies from a peak of +v volts through zero to -v volts in a cycle which is determined by the frequency, and is accompanied by magnetic fields curling around the direction of energy flow in say clockwise then stopping and then curling in a anticlockwise direction) is only required where energy goes from A to B without energy simultaneously going from B to A. If energy is in exchange equilibrium, going both from A to B and from B to A simultaneously, then there is no need for the radiation to be oscillating to propagate. Catt had claimed that all capacitor charge in steps. Therefore, it seemed reasonable that the reason for quantum jumps in putting energy into an atomic electron is that the Maxwellian exponential charging curve for a capacitor - which is based on Maxwell's displacement current equation - is the approximation in classical electromagnetism that needs to be corrected to convert it into quantum reality.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=444#comment-14521:

nigel cook Says: August 12th, 2006 at 4:23 pm “The Copenhagen interpretation was not simply thrown together from mathematical equations. It too was only reached after decades of experimental data that supported it. And finally the standard model was only proposed and accepted after countless meticulous and detailed experiments gathered vast amounts of cold hard data.” - Obsessive Maths FreakBut the Copenhagen interpretation is an ad hoc philosophy not a mathematical prediction technique, and it doesn’t make unique predictions that have been tested, so you can’t lump it with the Standard Model that does make predictions, has been tested. There is an industry within physics run by full time science fiction writers who do mathematical philosophy of physics part time, and after about 1916 that was what Bohr did. OK, he did some useful applied nuclear physics theory such as determining that U235 is the fssioning nuclide in natural uranium, but he just sprouted content-less, ad hoc, abjectly speculative philosophy when writing about the nature of reality and the future of theoretical physics. He claimed the Copenhagen Interpretation in 1927 solved everything completely for all time by separating and so outlawing any progress understanding of how classical and quantum electrodynamics can be reconciled:

‘... the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics ... physics has reached the end of the road.’ – Sir Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

‘... the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [between virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum and real electrons, etc.], as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. ... There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation ...’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

Update on gravity mechanism: the shielding area of each electron and quark for gravity is Pi(2GM/c^2)^2 square metres, where M is the mass of electron or quark. A reduction in gravity occurs because in an immense mass, you will get some electrons or quarks behind one another so they can't both shield gauge boson radiation from you, but because the sizes are so smal, black hole size (far, far smaller than even Planck length) the probability of two masses in any body being directly behind one another is virtually zero. So the force of gravity is directly prportional to the number of particles. The true formula, allowing for particles being behind one another, shows that gravity is proportional to 1 - exp(-xn) where n is the number of particles and x depends on the geometry, but because x is so small, this formula approximates to: 1 - exp(-xn) = xn, because this approximation is completely justified in the limit whereby the product xn is negligibly small compared to 1.

Further update (29 Aug 06) as a result of recent emailed discussions with Ian Montgomery <imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au>; Guy Grantham <epola@tiscali.co.uk>; David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com>:

Gauge bosons are being exchanged between each charge and all other charges all the time. This produces fundamental forces. Accelerate one charge, and the effect is a disturbance in the equilibrium. The effect of this disturbance goes off at the normal speed of the gauge bosons, c. What is happening in the case of the electron is that it is emitting continuous Heaviside slab type electromagnetic radiation (no oscillation, zero frequency), just as it emits heat photons (oscillating radiation) when above absolute zero. We detect the oscillating radiation because it causes other charges to resonate. We detect the non-oscillating radiation (Yang-Mills exchange radiation) because it causes forces and steady state force fields.

Waves flowing in a particulate medium by virtue of the gross disturbance of a large number of particles, such as sound waves in air or water molecules in water waves, dissipate energy because the particles strike one another at random, transferring momentum. This is why radio waves (which lose energy as they spread out) in Maxwell's (flawed world view) may be carried by the 'ether' or to be precise the quantum foam vacuum, but photons aren't carried by particles or they'd lose energy as they propagate. Photons are carried by the normal continuous radiation of gauge bosons (Yang Mills exchange radiation) which causes gravity, electromagnetim force fields, etc.

Photons emitted by atomic electrons don't spread like radio waves; the energy of a gamma ray doesn't fall off as the inverse of distance like a radio wave. A radio wave is different from a photon in that the energy of the wave changes with distance. Guy has claimed in response to me that this is not a contradiction, and that a radio wave is simply a compose of a vast number of photons, all in phase like coherent light from a laser. This is a possibility: for instance Huygens showed how a large number of fronts of small wavelets when superimposed can produce one large wave front. However, if so, then this is progress beyond the Maxwellian visual concept (as depicted vaguely as two sine waves orthagonal to one another in his Treatise) whereby a radio wave has a really massive transverse spatial extent, on the order of the wavelength or half the wavelength.

Maxwell missed the Heaviside-Poynting vector and Heaviside's proof that a slab of energy can travel without Maxwell's mechanism if there is equal energy flowing in opposite directions at the same time. This is why if I connect at 10 km unterminated long pair of wires to 377 volts DC power supply, I get something on the order of 1 amp flowing in the wires with the front going at light speed for the insulator between and around the wires, for the time of x/c = 33 microseconds that it takes the energy to react the open circuit at the far end.

(1) Photons emitted by single charges

Type of physics: Planck's quantum theory
Electromagnetic E and B fields in wave: constant regardless of distance travelled
Mechanism: Energy transfer is facilitated by a simple disturbance in the normal equilibrium exchange of energy flows between charges (in opposite directions, ie, through one another, continuously)

(2) Radio waves emitted by group behaviour of many charges

Type of physics: Maxwell's classical theory (radio waves)
Electromagnetic E and B fields in wave: fall off inversely with propagation distance and hence time (energy density falls off with inverse square of distance and energy density is proportional to square of field amplitude)
Mechanism: EITHER: (a) the radio wave is the superimposed composite of many photon type waves emitted by individual electrons in the transmitter aerial and the fall in the peak electric field strength of the wave with increasing distance is due statistically to the geometric divergence of these photons as they diverge (each individual photon remaining the same); OR (b) some kind of Maxwellian wave whereby displacement current of virtual charges in vacuum causes a curling magnetic field, which causes induction of vacuum virtual charge displacement current, which again causes a magnetic field and so on in a rolling wave. The equations are Faraday's induction law (Maxwell's equation for curl of an electric field being proportional to the rate of change of magnetic field) and Ampere's law with the current given by Maxwell's displacement current law (so that the curl of a magnetic field is proportional to displacement current which in turn is proportional to the rate of change of electric field strength). The waves dissipate because particles in the vacuum carrying the wave collide or scatter which dissipates momentum and energy as the wave propagates (for waves which are not carried by particles in the vacuum - for example photons which rely on Yang-Mills exchange radiation which is Heaviside non-oscillating contrapuntal flow see (1) above - there is no mechanism for dissipation because they are not carried by vacuum particles; since there is no mechanism for photons to dissipate, they can't dissipate).

The material above brought a request from Ian Montgomery for definition of a gauge boson, how a photon resulting from a disturbance in gauge boson exchange radiation can have any given frequency, what evidence there is for each of the two mechanisms listed above for electromagnetic radiation, and whether there is an overlap at any frequencies between the two mechanisms (whereby a wave can be caused by either mechanism; obviously there are as many variations as there are forms of radiation for instance you have different types of gauge boson and neutrinos, etc., so there are variants in nature), and what the vacuum contains. Response:

Definition of gauge boson: 'Gauge boson: Any of the particles that carry the four fundamental forces of nature (see forces, fundamental). Gauge bosons are elementary particles that cannot be subdivided, and include the photon, the graviton, the gluons, and the W+, W-, and Z particles.'

The key thing is that in any propagating wave (whether longitudinal like sound or sonar, or transverse such as a water surface wave) you need equal and opposite flows. In a longitudinal wave such as sound, the two pressures act in opposite directions along the line of propagation of the wave, whereas in a transverse wave, the pressures act in opposite directions along a line which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. This is due to Newton's 3rd law, since pressure times area is force, and forces are balanced.

In a sound wave you have an outward force associated with the overpressure phase and an inward force associated with the below-ambient pressure phase.

If you just release some air at pressure, no sound wave is generated unless somehow an oscillation is produced (such as by a whistle or similar mechanism). See illustrations at: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/outward-pressure-times-area-is-outward.html

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC GAUGE BOSON CAN PROPAGATE WITHOUT OSCILLATION

As you charge up a pair of separated metal spheres with the same type of charge (say electrons), the region between them becomes a "negative electric field". What is actually occurring is that the flow of gauge boson energy intensifies in each direction. It is impossible to have a non-oscillating electromagnetic gauge boson energy flow in one direction only, or it will have infinite self inductance problems due to the effect of the magnetic field on the virtual charges in the vacuum!

However, if you have two flows of gauge boson energy, with one passing through the other (in opposite directions), as actually occurs continuously in Yang-Mills exchange, the magnetic fields of the Heaviside-Poynting energy currents exactly cancel out, so there is no magnetic problem and propagation becomes possible without any oscillation. All you get left with is the observed electric field in space, which is exactly what is observed. That field lacks the energy density required to polarize virtual charges in space, because we know from QED that the success of renormalized charge means that the vacuum is not polarized by weak electric fields (there is a definite cutoff; electric fields can only polarize the vacuum charges if the energy density of the electric fields is fairly intense, above the threshold necessary to create fresh electron-positron pairs in the vacuum).

"If the photon mechanism below is gauge boson ballistic disturbance, how can it have a frequency?" - Ian.

The "frequency" of a disturbance is the number one divided by the duration of the disturbance in seconds.

I've already explained why a propagating disturbance has momentum giving rise to forces which are equal and opposite (along the direction of propagation in longitudinal waves; perpendicular to the direction of propagation in the case of transverse waves) due to Newton's 3rd law. Further, the pulse shape does not have to necessarily conform to any particular prejudice (sine waves).

Nobody has ever measured the electric field waveform for light, since it is far too short and beyond experimental measurement even where the intensity is high for example using a coherent laser burst. For gamma rays, the click on the geiger counter or scintillation counter is not even directly caused by the gamma ray, but is an indirect result caused by ionization of gas or the disturbance to the sodium iodide crystal structure in the scintillation counter. There is no way anyone can measure any waveform, and there is no meaning to the word wavefore in this context. Hence the association of the word "frequency" to electromagnetic radiation is entirely mathematical for above S-band radio (microwaves); you can't see any evidence of structure.

The wave mechanisms are different for classical and quantum radiation. However, most of Maxwell's theory is gibberish and he doesn't have a clear illustration of what is going on. In the capactor where Maxwell gets his key equation for light, the 'displacement current' equation, what is normally attributed to displacement current is actually set up in the first place by the flow of radiation, see my piece about this at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html and links on that page. So the dynamics of Maxwell's theory are wrong. The 'displacement current' of virtual charge is set up as a result of the real charge being induced to charge up in the capacitor plates by way of electromagnetic radiation exchange.

Maxwell claims that charge accumulates in the plates of the charging capacitor via displacement current in the vacuum due to charge polarization. But this is false since if the charge in the vacuum could be polarized by weak electric fields, it would oppose and cancel out all real charges (quantum field theory uses renormalization which shows that there is a minimum energy density of the electric field which produces free charge that can be polarized). What really occurs in place of Maxwell's 'displacement current' is explained here (and on its links): http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

Electromagnetic radiation induces real charge to accumulate in each plate, which in turn might create the displacement of some virtual charges in the vacuum between the plates.

There is factual evidence that the capacitor charges up due to radiation, not virtual displacement current flowing between capacitor plates. Maxwell's mechanism is false because it neglects the dynamics. When you set down the facts you can see that there energy flowing in one plate transmitts electromagnetic radiation to the other plate via charge acceleration in the plates, and the other plate sends out an exactly inverted waveform. Both signals exactly cancel as seen from large distances, so exactly zero energy can be radiated away from the capacitor by radiation, but 100% is used to induce motion of charge in the other plate. This is the mechanism for the Heaviside signal in a capacitor and transmission line.

Maxwell's theory is like the legendiary frauds of science which come from getting cause and effect mixed up. For example, in the book 'How to Lie with Statistics' the example is given that in Holland (I think) researchers found that the houses with the most children had the most stork's nests on the roofs. It is very easy to confuse cause and effect where you don't have a firm grasp on what the full dynamics really are. In this case, the reason for the number of stork's nests were that on the average people with more children had bigger, older houses to accommodate them, and storks nests are more likely to be found on the roofs of bigger, older houses. There is no need for more fanciful theories.

Maxwell's idea that there is virtual charges in the vacuum becoming polarised (which is his final mechanism for displacement current) is wrong, because the success of renormalization in QED which predicts the Lamb shift and the magnetic moments of leptons (electron, muon, etc) proves that the vacuum can't be polarized by weak electric fields, only by electric fields strong enough to be capable of creating pairs of free charges which can then become polarized.

So it is likely that Guy must be right and mechanism (2) above (Maxwellian waves) is a complete dud. In that case, all radiation including radio waves is due to mechanism (1), with radio waves diverging and losing energy because they are superpositions of many small quantum waves just like the continuous wavefronts you can produce in a physics lab using a lot of oscillating sources. The wavefronts combine and add by Huygen's construction.

No there is no evidence for two separate mechanisms once you dismiss Maxwell, and this adds conviction to the idea that all radiation is due to mechanism (1) above. However, David claims to have a version of Maxwell's theory which works. The key thing is whether David's version of the Maxwell theory gets around the polarization problem. QED shows that if the virtual charges in the vacuum were polarizable by any electric field, every charge would cause enough vacuum polarization around it to cancel out the electric field from the charge completely! Suppose you have an electron, QED suggests that without a vacuum it would have a charge of 137e where e is observed electric charge at a distance more than 10^-10 metre or less. Renormalization in QED reduces the electron charge to e because the virtual charge is polarized between the electron core and some distance (10^-10 m or probably much less, I am desperate to make detailed calculations and actually plot the electric charge and nuclear charge as a function of distance, not a function of collision energy which is the usual plot by physicists). So the real electron core has a charge of ~137e, and around it there is attracted a shell of virtual positrons with opposite charge, then around the positron shell there is a virtual electron shell. (By shell I refer to the mean distance of the virtual positrons freed in the vacuum by the intense close in electric field, and the somewhat greater mean distance of the virtual electrons; obviously this is statistical and you not have every virtual electron at one radius and every virtual positron at another smaller radius from the real electron core.)

The exact shielding is dependent on the amount of polarization, ie unpolarized (randomly distributed) virtual charge around the electron core won't do any shielding, but polarization does some since it creates an electric field vector which points away from the electron, cancelling the electron's inward pointing electric field line (electric field lines are by convention labelled with an arrow pointing from positive toward negative charge).

Because there is no polarization in the vacuum due to weak electric fields (because if there was, it would totally cancel out all real charges!), I don't think radio waves can be due to Maxwell's displacement current mechanism. However, it may be possible to have a radio wave in which the mechanism is the same as the Heaviside slab of energy, with the role of Maxwell's displacement current being replaced by that of radiation: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

‘… the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics … physics has reached the end of the road.’ – Sir Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [between virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum and real electrons, etc.], as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

Therefore I want to preserve the useful Popper mechanism if I can do so, whereas most critics (Catt etc) want to chuck out everything in modern physics just because it is often badly presented (with hype or obfuscation) in its present abstract mathematics form.

The vacuum must contain virtual charges in order that quantum theory work, but there is a constraint that the vacuum is not polarizable unless the energy of the electric field from a charge is strong (ie a charge can only polarize the vacuum very close to it, not at great distances). If a real charge could polarize the vacuum charges without constraint, there would be no observable real electric charges, because the shells of positive and negative vacuum polarization around each real charge would simply expand until they cancelled each real charge out completely.

So the vacuum cannot contain free, polarizable charge. The charges in the vacuum can only be polarized where the electric field is strong enough to first break some kind of constraining forces and therefore free up some charge which si then polarized. So the physics behind renormalization of charge is a two-stage process.

First, the bound vacuum charges have to be freed, which can only occur in strong electric fields quite close to real charges, and then, second, the freed charges are polarized by the electric field which opposes the field and causes the shielding of the bare charge strength (which renormalization requires in quantum field theory).

So some kind of bound electrons and positrons (as contrasted to the mainstream idea of a foam of free annihilating electrons and protons) in the vacuum may explain renormalization.

So there may be some kind of bound electron-positron structure to explain renormalization in quantum field theory.

There is no particle with rest mass between electron and muon. Muon is about 205 times electron mass. Hence, in a randomly colliding sea of electron-positron pairs, using Popper's causal mechanism, a scattering type interpretation, of the energy-time Heisenberg ucertainty principle, there will one muon-antimuon pair for every 205 electron-positron pairs. Hence the vacuum will be 0.5% heavy particles (muons-antimuons) and 99.5% electron-positron pairs. Far beyond muons, you get many other particles, which become rarer and rarer still: pions, quarks, etc.

The Higgs boson has problems: in the simplest model with just one Higgs boson the mass of the Higgs boson should be infinite. More sophisticated Higgs theories are built on SUSY the 10-dimensional supersymmetric unification theory which Witten showed to be a duality of 11 dimensional supergravity. In other words this is string theory, abject speculation with no tests.

My argument is that the origin of all mass is due to gravitationally trapped Z bosons of electroweak theory, which take the place of Higgs bosons. I used this to predict all the masses of all the known particles, and the formula predicts exactly where you can search for certain other short-lived as yet unobserved particles to check it further. See http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-polarization-of-vacuum-and.html for details.

Briefly, to show a mainstream alternative, here is a link to the latest New Scientist article concerning an aetherial replacement to dark matter as far as galactic evidence goes:

http://www.blogger.com/

It cites the following paper which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters:

http://www.blogger.com/

Astrophysics, abstractastro-ph/0607411From: T.G Zlosnik [view email]Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:43:44 GMT (10kb)

Modifying gravity with the Aether: an alternative to Dark MatterAuthors: T.G Zlosnik, P.G Ferreira, G.D Starkman

I think their use of "Aether" will guarantee that PRL will reject it. They should specify something like "Higgs field" instead. Stanley Brown, editor PRL, still rejected my paper, even after I deleted the word ether! For his email see http://www.blogger.com/

They have a rule: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That rule would have prevented Einstein getting relativity published, because the most impressive tests came after publication! If you get your evidence before submitting it, they accuse you of having an ad hoc theory! (If relativity was just an ad hoc explanation, it would have been rejected as speculative.)

I have not studied recent evidence for dark matter in galaxies, only in cosmology. I recall something about the evidence having to do with the rotation speed of galaxies being proportional to the square root of the distance from the middle (or do I mis-remember, I cannot find the lecture notes)? There is an analogy here possibly with hurricane rotation dynamics and the Corolis force: http://www.blogger.com/ and http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/115637347840039579/#587544

Christine Dantas has an interesting discussion here:
http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/08/dark-matter-lay-bare.html

UPDATES: Clarification of the physical basis to the gravity mechanism model: Is the quantum mechanical (virtual particle) vacuum expanding like the matter in the universe, or not? My initial answer from the gravity mechanism ten years ago was no, but I didn’t understand the dynamics of the model as a whole at that time, because I had to add in a separate model two years ago to allow for the higher density of the early distant universe in spacetime. Because the gauge boson (Yang Mills exchange) radiation that causes gravity and electromagnetism is weakened due to recession of the distant masses (just as light from those masses is red-shifted), that exchange radiation which drives fundamental forces is being stretched out as the universe expands. This prevents the effective strength of gravity going towards infinity due to the increasing density of the universe at immense distances. The effective density of the universe would increase towards infinity as the distance we are looking to increases to 15,000 million light years (time zero). We don’t get an infinite amount of gauge boson radiation from the infinitely high density at such distances because the big bang expansion (by analogy to visible red-shift) in effect stretches (red-shifts) gauge bosons to an infinite extent as the density goes towards infinity, and these two effects offset one another. If the virtual-particle filled vacuum is expanding, then vacuum energy density would diminish with time, affecting masses and forces which depend on the ‘Higgs field’ and Yang-Mills radiation in the vacuum. If the entire source of the virtual charges in the spacetime fabric is Yang-Mills exchange radiation (giving rise to gravity and electromagnetism forces) which spends part of its time as virtual charge pairs in the vacuum, these arise from the presence of matter and don’t extend for an infinite distance. At present, this possibility seems the most convincing and least speculative extension of existing empirically defensible knowledge. The first priority is to assemble a working set of empirically defensible ideas. The dynamics needs to come first, the mathematics of the model must come later (or else the mathematical model will be speculative with too many loose ends, of no use).

The light photon is a discontinuity/disturbance in the pre-existing equilibrium Yang-Mills continuous (non-oscillating) energy exchange between all charges (producing gravity and other forces). So the photon can only take paths which already exist between charges in the universe. The photon can’t travel along any other paths. This is the deep physical reality of Yang-Mills exchange radiation QFT, corresponding physically to Feynman’s path integrals.
The virtual charge pairs in the vacuum are formed from the energy of the gauge boson exchange radiation energy.

As for the error of Maxwell, consider the continuous energy transfer in a logic step. That is not an oscillating Maxwellian wave, all it requires is that there are two energy flows (equally in opposite directions, such as the opposite energy current flows guided by each of the two conductors in a transmission line). You can’t make that work with just a single wire, which is why if you connect one terminal on a battery to ground earth, it can’t drain the battery with a current of I = V/Z = V /(377 Ohms impedance of free space, with geometrical correction factor for magnetic inductance) until the earth is charged up.
On large scales, radio waves are transverse Maxwellian waves and they disperse and lose peak electric field and peak magnetic field strength as they propagate outwards, unlike photons emitted by single individual charges. Maxwellian radio waves propagate dispersively (as they do) by the carrier motion of virtual charges (displacement current) in the vacuum.

The virtual charges allowing this are created by the force-carrying gauge bosons, which spend part of their time dissociated into matter-antimatter pairs in the vacuum.

The force-carrying “gauge bosons” themselves do NOT require charges in the vacuum in order to propagate, because they are continuous (non-oscillating, non-Maxwellian) energy exchange radiation between charges, like the continuous, non-oscillating exchange of energy which occurs when you place two batteries of similar voltage in a parallel circuit. As soon as you connect such batteries in parallel circuit, each sends a continuous (endlessly-long) logic pulse into the other, which has no mechanism to stop. Neither discharges as a result, because each supplies the other with the same energy as it loses. This is entirely clear from what is known about logic signals, although the fraudulent steady-state electrical trash such as Ohm’s and Kirchoff’s laws are still taught, which only deal with COMPLETE circuits and then taught with the lying claim that electricity only travels in complete circuits (which is contrary to the fact that information does not go instantly around the crcuit; electricity always sets off at light speed with a current determined by the “vacuum displacement current” between the conductors (which has a resistance called a characteristic impedance, which is some multiple of the impedance of free space; 377 ohms = product of magnetic permeability of free space and velocity of light), and doesn’t “know” or care whether the line ahead of it is an open circuit or a closed circuit, so normal teaching of physics is a complete fraud and a lie that must be corrected as it has massive implications for physics).

Response to a dismissive email from Guy Grantham, 25 August 2006 22:10: 1: the prediction of gravity strength G and electromagnetism strength I give using a method which is only compatible with Yang Mills is accurate. Nobody else can put forward any calculations which are accurate and based on a mechanistic theory which is based on observations without any speculation. 2: "> Radio waves are generated by the movement and reversal in direction of> single individual charges too. We cause electrons to travel up to the end > of an antenna and bounce back again, radio waves are emitted." Nobody has ever demonstrated whether the acceleration of a single electron produces constant energy photons or instead radio waves which individually spread out losing peak electric field strength by the inverse of distance. It is possible for a radio wave to decay in peak electric field strength without changing frequency; it does this because the frequency is the number of cycles per second, ie the number of crests (peaks) passing you per second. The frequency has nothing to do with the transverse length of the radio wave. I can generate any frequency I like using any length of aerial I like. Obviously it is hard to get a high efficiency of transmission for a long wavelength using an aerial much shorter than the 'wavelength', but it is quite possible to get transmission using a loading coil at the base of the aerial which changes the resonate frequency, just as you can change the frequency with which a tuning fork vibrates by damping its oscillations. Radio waves are emitted sideways by aerials, ie, they are emitted in a direction perpendicular to the direction of oscillating energy flow up and down the aerial.The peak electric field strength in general falls off inversely with increasing distance for radio waves, because of transverse spreading. This VIOLATES Planck's law whereby energy E = hf = hc / [wavelength]. Radio waves do lose energy WITHOUT varying in frequency. They are divorced from photons. If you claim a radio wave is a composite of a large number of individual photons, you then have the problem of admitting that the real wavelength is not the transverse wavelength, because an electron drifting at 1 mm/second under a 1 amp current in a high power commercial transmitter aerial will only move a fraction of a millimetre while a full cycle of VHF radio (or any frequency above ELF, ie any audio output radio you can actually listen to for practical purposes). Hence the size of the transverse transmission distance is less than 1 millimetre for all wavelengths. For 1 metre waves, the effective aerial length for transmission by a single electron is still under 1 millimetre. This completely undermines the transverse concept of Maxwell's waves, where the wavelength of the wave was supposed to correspond to its transverse dimensions. If so, then the Maxwellian concept of wavelength is a complete fraud for radio waves, since it is not physically correct, does not correspond to the real transverse dimensions of individual radio photons, and is merely a mathematical invention based on the misapplication of the "wave axiom" of physics to radio waves, the wave axiom being frequency f = c / [wavelength]. You can see where Maxwell went wrong: as I said before he doesn't say how far the oscillation occurs transversely in a radio wave. With a transverse (surface) water wave, the transverse oscillation is measured in similar units to the wavelength, and as the height of water waves increase, the wavelength (perpendicular to the height) also generally increases, so the two are in a fixed ratio in general. This is not true for radio waves. Maxwell obfuscates by plotting electric field strength (v/m) versus wavelength (m) in his treatise, when this is 1 dimensional (a line, ie, a longitudinal wave like sound) not a transverse wave because it shows only variations along the propagation axis, not variations perpendicular to it (drawing the field strengths of electromagnetism perpendicular to the propagation dimension proves he is drawing a longitudinal wave as I can plot air pressure variation and temperature variation as a function of propagation distance in a sound wave both perpendicular to the direction of propagation; the graph will look just like Maxwell's light wave picture, but will still be a longitudinal sound wave, not a transverse sound wave). To get a two dimensional diagram, Maxwell would need to plot E and B varying as functions of dimensions OTHER than the propagation direction of the wave! 3: You haven't grasped the battery. Connect a long pair of open circuit wires to 1.5 v battery terminals. That instant, a logic pulse of something on the order of [1.5 volts] / [377 ohms for space between ends of cable + cable resistance for a length of cable equal to ct metres where t is time after connecting wires to battery terminals] ~ 0.004 amps (the actual figure will be different since the impedance won't be exactly 377 ohms unless the wires approximate to flat parallel plates separated by a distance equal to their width) sets off down the wires, not knowing whether it is going towards another battery in parallel circuit, or a load such as a light bult at the far end, or an open circuit. Energy pours into the cable with no knowledge - and no concern for - where it is going, or whether the circuit is complete or open, or what the resistance of the circuit as a whole is. If you simultaneously connect at the far end another battery with the terminals the same way (so the two batteries are parallel), they both fire energy at light speed towards each other. After the logic pulses meet in the middle of the length of cable, they begin to overlap. In the part that they overlap, electrons are not forced to have a net drift in any direction, so there is no electric current for the overlap region. When the logic pulses reach the battery at the other end, they recharge it. Each battery is endlessly pouring out energy (not current, once the equilibrium is set up there is no current as explained because current only occurs where electrons are forced to have a net drift, and ther is no net drift), and receiving it at the same rate. There is no mechanism by which, at some stage, each battery can decide to stop pouring out energy to the other. Neither does. [To insist other wise is like the folly of claiming that something at constant temperature is emitting heat, or else it would cool. Since Prevost 1792, we know that cases of apparently static phenomena in nature are usually dynamic equilibria with the lack of apparent change being down to an equality in the rates of emission and reception.] Take the simple case of connecting an open circuit cable to a battery of 1.5 volts. The cable wire ends of the open circuit cable end become charged to 1.5 volts when the logic pulse from the battery arrives there and reflects back from the bound end electrons at the end of the wires. Energy is endlessly being sent out by the battery, and is endlessly reflecting back off the far end of the wire and returning to the battery. Once the equilibrium is established, the voltage is constant all the way along the cable, so the electric field gradient is E = dV/dX = 0/dX = 0. Because the electric field gradient is zero, there is no electromotive force to accelerate electrons, hence NO ELECTRON DRIFT CURRENT, just electromagnetic force (gauge boson) energy flow in both directions at light speed. Without electric current, there is no heating in the cable, and no energy loss by heat, merely energy loss due to the amount of electromagnetic energy stored in the cable, like energy in a charged capacitor.

FURTHER UPDATE:

Maxwell's models of vacuum polarization in the gap between two capacitor plates generally said that space contains electric dipoles (like polar molecules which are positive on one end and negative on the other, due to localization of electrons). These were supposed to become aligned in the vacuum, forming lines of electric force. However, quantum field theory has a vacuum populated by electric monopoles (virtual electrons, virtual positrons, virtual quarks, etc.), with no electric dipoles at all. Maxwell's dipole orientation theory may at best possibly just have some relevance to magnetic field lines (although there are serious problems with this). Maxwell's theory of electric field lines and 'displacement current' in the vacuum is flawed. Maxwell uses a continuous differential equation for vacuum currents caused by polarization of vacuum charge. Quantum field theory shows that Maxwell's equation must be wrong in mechanism and I've explained the corrections needed and the full replacement theory clearly on this blog earlier; quantum field theory shows that Maxwell's conception of polarization is false in the real world there is a low-energy ('infrared') cutoff on the amount of vacuum polarization:

CALCULATION OF THE POLARIZATION CUTOFF RANGE:

Dyson’s paper http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608140 is very straightforward and connects deeply with the sort of physics I understand (I’m not a pure mathematician turned physicist). Dyson writes on page 70:

‘Because of the possibility of exciting the vacuum by creating a positron-electron pair, the vacuum behaves like a dielectric, just as a solid has dielectric properties in virtue of the possibility of its atoms being excited to excited states by Maxwell radiation. This effect does not depend on the quantizing of the Maxwell field, so we calculate it using classical fields.

‘Like a real solid dielectric, the vacuum is both non-linear and dispersive, i.e. the dielectric constant depends on the field intensity and on the frequency. And for sufficiently high frequencies and field intensities it has a complex dielectric constant, meaning it can absorb energy from the Maxwell field by real creation of pairs.’

Pairs are created by the high intensity field near the bare core of the electron, and the pairs become polarised, shielding part of the bare charge. The lower limit cutoff in the renormalized charge formula is therefore due to the fact that polarization is only possible where the field is intense enough to create virtual charges.

This threshold field strength for this effect to occur is 6.9 x 10^20 volts/metre. This is the electric field strength by Gauss’ law at a distance 1.4 x 10^-15 metre from an electron, which is the maximum range of QED vacuum polarization. This distance comes from the ~1 MeV collision energy used as a lower cutoff in the renormalized charge formula, because in a direct (head on) collision all of this energy is converted into electrostatic potential energy by the Coulomb repulsion at that distance: to do this just put 1 MeV equal to potential energy (electron charge)^2 / (4Pi.Permittivity.Distance).

Can someone explain to me why there are no books or articles with plots of observable (renormalized) electric charge versus distance from a quark or lepton, let alone plots of weak and nuclear force as a function of distance? Everyone plots forces as a function of collision energy only, which is obfuscating. What you need is to know is how the various types of charge vary as a function of distance. Higher energy only means smaller distance. It is pretty clear that when you plot charge as a function of distance, you start thinking about how energy is being shielded by the polarized vacuum and electroweak symmetry breaking becomes clearer. The electroweak symmetry exists close to the bare charge but it breaks at great distances due to some kind of vacuum polarization/shielding effect. Weak gauge bosons get completely attenuated at great distances, but electromagnetism is only partly shielded.
To convert energy into distance from particle core, all you have to do is to set the kinetic energy equal to the potential energy, (electron charge)^2 / (4Pi.Permittivity.Distance). However, you have to remember to use the observable charge for the electron charge in this formula to get correct results (hence at 92 GeV, the observable electric charge of the electron to use is 1.07 times the textbook low-energy electronic charge).

More material: http://nige.wordpress.com/

42 Comments:

At 8:08 AM, Blogger nige said...

Actually, there may be charges generally in the vacuum, but they are not FREE charges that can be polarized, otherwise all electric fields from real charges would be completely cancelled by vacuum polarization.

Another thing, the photo on Hooft's page at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/kop2.jpg looks more like Hitler. So perhaps Hooft is not guilty of egotism, just of fascism.

Anyway, Peter Woit reports on his blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=440

"Nobel Prize Winning Orgiasts

"DealBreaker, which is described as “an online business tabloid and Wall Street gossip blog”, has a story about supposed Jeffrey Epstein parties “in which Nobel prize winners and various wealthy folks were all surrounded by young, ‘nude eastern european girls, frolicking with them, and then proceeding into one big orgy party.’” The story refers hopefully to the idea that this might have something to do with the physics symposium in St. Thomas funded and organized by Epstein that was mentioned here.

"Update: When I wrote this blog posting last night, it was purely based on the posting at DealBreaker, which appeared to be a silly fantasy, based I assumed on some highly exaggerated version of something that happened involving consenting adults at an Epstein party. The idea of Gross-Wilczek-’t Hooft-Hawking participating in an orgy at the conference Epstein sponsored was obviously a joke, although perhaps a bit of a tasteless one. I was completely unaware of the serious accusations against Epstein and of the fact that charges have been filed against him involving his sexual behavior. Given this context which I didn’t know about, the joke isn’t funny.

"Epstein has been exceptionally generous to the math and physics community over the years. He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence and I don’t think this blog is an appropriate place for discussion of his case. So I’m shutting off further comments on this posting."

One of the commentators notes that Hawking exploited a teenage kid in 2003 and was not humiliated by the media because of his social status or medical condition (one rule for reporting the famous, another for others):

anon Says:

August 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Stephen Hawking is a definite suspect. He has lapdances in Peter Stringfellow’s nightclub, London, in 2003 and although most media tried to censor the news it leaked out. The Scotsman newspaper even reports the teenage lady’s name:

“In July [2003] the Lucasian professor for Mathematics at Cambridge University and author of A Brief History of Time spent five hours at Peter Stringfellow’s lapdance club, the Cabaret of Angels, enjoying the gyrations of a 19-year-old dancer called ‘Tiger’.”

- http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=1080412003

The BBC website naturally reports that the experience was beneficial to Professor Hawking’s health:

“... I heard a rumour that Man City have just signed the lapdance-loving Professor, Stephen Hawking ...”

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/news/btn/timhoward.shtml

 
At 8:25 AM, Anonymous not Gerardus 't Hoofter, not Plato said...

Hi nigel,

Can I just point out that although the great 'T Hooft has a photo of a lizard on his home page under the byline "VIEW FROM ST. THOMAS", http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ , this link between 't Hooft and the physics symposium in St. Thomas funded and organized by Epstein does not PROVE a link between 't Hooft and underage illegal sex.

It is entirely possible that Epstein will escape conviction because he has the money to hire a very expensive lawyer.

In that case, the link between 't Hooft attending a conference of Epstein and child abuse would be effectively axed (according to libel law you would have no right to openl assert a contrary once a person is acquitted as not guilty).

Secondly, even if Epstein were to be convicted by some failure of his defence team, that the link between 't Hooft and child sex would be so indirect that it would not smear his "good" reputation as an egotist in the least.

 
At 8:32 AM, Blogger nige said...

Dear "Plato not",

't Hooft is a crackpot for his assertion that determinism rules, while ignoring the factual proof that determinism doesn't because of the chaos introduced by many-body interactions of the quantum mechanical vacuum with elementary particles. CAUSALITY, not determinism, is the deep fact.

't Hooft ignores my communications on this, which makes him BOTH egotistical AND fascist. He sent me one email only, which was last December (2005), asking like Smolin and Gribbin that I should remove his name from the email circular.

He doesn't want or like physics, he claims that facts are nigel cook's pet theory, blah blah blah.

He is a fascist and an egotist.

Nature is a discovery of the real world, not an invention of such-and-such.

His mathematical work is brilliant, but that doesn't imply he is sensible or decent as a person.

Many thanks,
nigel cook

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger nige said...

FASCISM DEFINED:

‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived, but not abandoned.’ – Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.



FASCISTS IN PHYSICS:

Reference http://feynman137.tripod.com/
and http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d

Fact based predictions and comparison with experimental observations
‘String/M-theory’ of mainstream physics is falsely labelled a theory because it has no dynamics and makes no testable predictions, it is abject speculation, unlike tested theories like General Relativity or the Standard Model which predicts nuclear reaction rates and unifies fundamental forces other than gravity. ‘String theory’ is more accurately called ‘STUMPED’, STringy, Untestable M-theory ‘Predictions’, Extra-Dimensional. Because these ‘string theorists’ suppressed the work below within seconds of it being posted to arXiv.org in 2002 (without even reading the abstract), we should perhaps politely call them the acronym of ‘very important lofty experts’, or even the acronym of ‘science changing university mavericks’. There are far worse names for these people.

HOW STRING THEORY SUPPRESSES REALITY USING PARANOIA ABOUT ‘CRACKPOT’ ALTERNATIVES TO MAINSTREAM

‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived, but not abandoned.’ – Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.

‘The creative period passed away … The past became sacred, and all that it had produced, good and bad, was reverenced alike. This kind of idolatry invariably springs up in that interval of languor and reaction which succeeds an epoch of production. In the mind-history of every land there is a time when slavish imitation is inculcated as a duty, and novelty regarded as a crime… The result will easily be guessed. Egypt stood still… Conventionality was admired, then enforced. The development of the mind was arrested; it was forbidden to do any new thing.’ – W.W. Reade, The Martyrdom of Man, 1872, c1, War.

‘Whatever ceases to ascend, fails to preserve itself and enters upon its inevitable path of decay. It decays … by reason of the failure of the new forms to fertilise the perceptive achievements which constitute its past history.’ – Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., Sc.D., Religion in the Making, Cambridge University Press, 1927, p. 144.

‘What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e., of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else.’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, R.K.P., 1969, p100.

‘... the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics ... physics has reached the end of the road.’ – Sir Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303. (Note statistical scatter gives the energy form of Heisenberg’s equation, since the vacuum is full of gauge bosons carrying momentum like light, and exerting vast pressure; this gives the foam vacuum.)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROVING CAUSALITY

More http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d (that page is not obsolete of some new results which should - and will - be added soon, which for the meanwhile are available on this blog, http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ ).

Nige

 
At 4:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question

Dear Guy,

Apart from point 1, your list looks OK at first glance. Your first point:
"Energy is continuously exchanged as radiation of virtual gauge boson
particles (??) at the equilibrium condition between real bodies". I
disagree with this sentence which is extremely confused.

My formulation of point 1 would be:

"Energy is continuously radiated by continuously spinning charge due to the
centripetal acceleration due to spin. Since all charges behave alike in
this regard, in some situations (generally known as "statics" in mechanics,
and "electrostatics" in electricity) an equilibrium can occur, where the
radiant power (energy transmitted per second) of gauge boson radiation
energy being radiated and received by any charge is EXACTLY equal. This
occurs because any slightly larger charge radiates more strongly and since
the radiating power of every charge is really immense, all charges thereby
equalise to identical charge almost instantly, as Ivor Catt explained in a
less rigorous manner in his book Electromagnetism 1,
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_2.htm: 'Keeping within the wave theoretical
system, it is possible to explain why so-called 'particles' should appear to
have equal size ... One method would be to discuss ... the resulting
energy/matter exchange. There are three possibilities. Either the larger
steals from the smaller, or there is no transfer, or the smaller steals from
the larger. The fact that there is more than one 'particle' in today's
galaxy indicates that if a galaxy is very old, the first possibility must be
wrong. The second possibility is unlikely. The third would fully explain the
gradual equalizing out of 'particles' in a galaxy over time. (This approach
... needs extension to explain the existence of more than one type of
particle.)'."

I've developed this to predict all observable masses of elementary particles
on my home page: see http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ (latest post has
numerous links to highly relevant posts, including
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html
and
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/important-note-to-users-of-web-browers.html
also
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/relationship-between-charge-of-quarks.html
and
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-polarization-of-vacuum-and.html
for diagram).

Analogy: temperature is a radiation equilibrium in an undisturbed room
because hotter things radiate faster than cooler things, so everything soon
approaches the same temperature AUTOMATICALLY. Prevost had a hard time
introducing this in 1792.

There is an interesting section in the email Prof. Jonathan Post sent which
has been published as a comment here:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=434#comment-14106

anon Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 am
"A weaker version of this has already happened, with mathematics getting
unexpected solutions to problems via coded messages from Edward Witten, who
some have suspected of an intelligence extra-terrestrial in origin." - Woit.

Susskind says something similar about Edward Witten in a recent invterview
see
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154082909559&call_pageid=1105528093962&col=1105528093790
which is an article in The Toronto Star by Siobhan Roberts:

"... at a public lecture at the Strings05 conference in Toronto, an audience
member politely berated physicists for their bewildering smorgasbord of
analogies, asking why the scientists couldn't reach consensus on a few key
analogies so as to convey a more coherent and unified message to the public.

"The answer came as a disappointment. Robbert Dijkgraaf, a mathematical
physicist at the University of Amsterdam, bluntly stated that the plethora
of analogies is an indication that string theorists themselves are grappling
with the mysteries of their work; they are groping in the dark and thus need
every glimmering of analogical input they can get.

' "What makes our field work, particularly in the present climate of not
having very much in the way of newer experimental information, is the
diversity of analogy, the diversity of thinking," says Leonard Susskind, the
Felix Bloch professor of theoretical physics at Stanford, and the discoverer
of string theory.

' "Every really good physicist I know has their own absolutely unique way of
thinking," says Susskind. "No two of them think alike. And I would say it's
that diversity that makes the whole subject progress. I have a very
idiosyncratic way of thinking. My friend Ed Witten (at Princeton's Institute
for Advanced Study) has a very idiosyncratic way of thinking. We think so
differently, it's amazing that we can ever interact with each other. We
learn how. And one of the ways we learn how is by using analogy."

"Susskind considers analogy particularly important in the current era
because physics is almost going beyond the ken of human intelligence.

' "Physicists have gone through many generations of rewiring themselves, to
learn how to think about things in a way which initially was very
counterintuitive and very far beyond what nature wired us for," he says.
Physicists compensate for their evolutionary shortcomings, he says, either
by learning how to use abstract mathematics or by building analogies.

"Susskind, for his own part, deploys more of the latter. Analogy is one of
his most reliable tools (visual thinking is the other). And Susskind has a
few favourites that he always returns to, especially when he is stuck or
confused.

"He thinks of black holes as an infinite lake with boats swirling toward a
drain at the bottom, and he envisions the expanding universe as an inflating
balloon.

"However, the real art of analogy, he says, "is not just making them up and
using them, but knowing when they're defective, knowing their limitations.
All analogies are defective at some level."

"A balloon eventually pops, for example, whereas a universe does not. At
least not yet."

Kind regards,

nigel



----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question


> Dear Nigel
>
> Firstly, apology for 'hard ball photon', >>"I don't regard a photon as a
> hard particle, and I don't know why you falsely claim so. /nbc ". -
> Perhaps I assumed from your bullets analogy to describe
> virtual gauge bosons as particles radiating kinetic energy but if real
> boson photons as waves that leaves me with the same question as David had:
> waves of what, distortions of space?
>
> I seem to grasp your chosen model then my understanding of it collapses
> like a pack of cards; perhaps knowing this would be important for your
> presentation. Briefly recapping, (?? = please resolve confusion) :
>
> 1. Energy is continuously exchanged as radiation of virtual gauge boson
> particles (??) at the equilibrium condition between real bodies. Bosons
> travel at the speed of light which is a finite value of velocity which
> results from the rate of expansion of the space it travels through. (??)
>
> 2. There are different kinds of gauge (= sensing) boson particles for each
> kind of charged body (body = a real mass). There are negative ES gauge
> particles, positive ES gauge particles and others for strong force charged
> bodies (??)
>
> 3. Each kind of virtual boson can only impart momentum to its own kind of
> body to cause a repulsion but it can be blocked by the wrong kind of body
> which itself does not feel any momentum exchange thereby causing
> attractions between the right kind of bodies. Does this mean that
> electricity is of the two-fluid model pre-Franklin?
>
> 4. When the equilibrium is disturbed a real boson wave or vibration of
> (??) is created.
>
> 5. These interactions in conjunction with an expanding space following
> from big-bang creation event can explain gravitation and the universal
> constants.
>
> I have become more confused whilst posing my questions!
>
> Best regards, Guy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
> To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe"
> sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
> imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
> Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
> graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
> george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question
>
>
>> Dear Guy,
>>
>> "> I referred to partial loss of energy directly from a wave form during
>>> propagation due to imperfections in the propagating medium causing its
>>> wavelength to increase as experienced with radio waves on Earth,
>>> although
>>> some will be due to re-emissions. It may be difficult for you to
>>> conceive perhaps when you regard a photon as a hard particle of
>>> appropriate mass." - Guy
>>
>> This is pseudoscience unless you specify what you mean by "imperfections
>> in the propagating medium", not just because you have not got any
>> evidence
>> for it (just as you have got no evidence for dowsing), but because you
>> have not even bothered to make it look scientific: something like 90% of
>> the matter in the universe is hydrogen, so if your idea is correct
>> hydrogen would do the job. There is very little ionised or non-ionised
>> gas in space generally, it is confined by gravity to large clouds and
>> nebulae (which are also contain dust). The positions of the clouds of
>> matter are precisely known because they obscure light from stars behind
>> them, creating dark regions.
>>
>> Contrary to what yourself and David seem to think, there is an enormous
>> amount of pretty precise evidence now available from astronomy about
>> cosmology (the speculation about dark energy and matter are false and are
>> not input from astronomy or verified cosmology, they are rubbish).
>>
>> I don't regard a photon as a hard particle, and I don't know why you
>> falsely claim so. As I explained before to you, all charges are
>> continuously exchanging energy at an enormous rate (the Yang-Mills
>> quantum
>> field theory force-causing radiation exchange mechanism). We don't see
>> it
>> except as forces unless there is acceleration of a local charge, because
>> there is equal energy going along all paths all the time which maintain
>> equilibrium (equilibrium is naturally set up, because any particle
>> radiating more rapidly soon loses net energy and its radiation emission
>> rate therefore falls off until it equals the rate of radiation energy
>> input it is receiving). A photon as we know it is an energy release due
>> to a disturbance in the normal exchange process. If a charge
>> accelerates,
>> it radiates a "photon" which is a net increase in the natural continuous
>> radiation exchange process.
>>
>> Photons carry momentum because they cause forces, since the exchange
>> radiation itself is the mechanism of forces. I do appreciate the fact
>> that I'm able to see the issues yourself and David have with this,
>> largely
>> due to the details of the exchange radiation and to the evidence for
>> redshift being due to recession. I reverse your skepticism: in science
>> you can't ignore the facts available on your personal whim, you have to
>> address the facts and instead of ignoring them build a better model - in
>> detail - if you think they are being inadequately treated. There is no
>> mechanism (you can't count as scientific the untested ad hoc speculative
>> stuff which doesn't even say what is causing the reshift and tie it to
>> known data on ionised hydrogen regions in space, which is convenient for
>> you because it would fail immediately since there is no evidence
>> whatsoever for what you are waffling about Guy), whatsoever for redshifts
>> to be due to anything but recession, and the beauty of this is that it
>> forces you to conclude that gravity is caused by an inward reaction.
>> What
>> you have to do really is to put aside prejudice for a few seconds and
>> check the simplicity of the mechanism and proofs, and the accuracy of the
>> predictions, see the list at http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d which is
>> about six months out of date and should be supplemented by more recent
>> additional results at http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d
>>
>> However, it is probably more useful to me that you continue insisting
>> that
>> the mechanism and all the factual evidence it is based on is completely
>> wrong. If you just agree, then we might discuss presentation and further
>> developments in a different, more technical way, but it would not help to
>> force me to think about presenting it more convincingly.
>>
>> There is a degeneration which sets into physics after each new idea. If
>> the new idea is accepted too easily by leaders in a field, it is never
>> presented with the care and force of evidence which is required to make
>> it
>> widely accessible. Quantum mechanics suffered this - working at the
>> abstract mathematical level but then never being developed into a causal
>> mechanism with uncertainty being due to the effect of the aether on a
>> small scalelike the brownian motion of pollen grains in air. This is
>> tragic. So itis probably best in the long run to try to develop it as
>> far
>> as possible in every way through responding to criticisms and making
>> improvements in clarity and simplicity, before hoping to gain widespread
>> interest or mainstream publication. When I started a decade ago, I just
>> wanted to publish the simple idea with the simple maths and leave it to
>> the professional physicists in professorships to develop it. Now I'm
>> certain that had it been published in say Classical and Quantum Gravity,
>> it would not have led to anything but a lot of bigotry and argument which
>> ignores the facts it predicted, like the lack of long range gravitational
>> retardation of supernovae. It is not a pet theory, it is just a jigsaw
>> puzzle with the pieces made entirely by others (from spacetime to
>> Yang-Mills theory, etc.) which I've pieced together so that you see a
>> picture which makes some predictions. However, the more work I do in
>> trying to convince others, the more I get involved with it. At the
>> moment
>> there is nobody else to defend it, certainly not the close one-time
>> friends like Catt who completely hate it for various non-scientific
>> reasons (prejudice).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> nigel

 
At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question

Dear Guy,

"> Is a gauge boson a particle ? yes/no"

YES (AND A DISCRETE UNIT OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY CALLED A "PARTICLE" IS A
GRAVITATIONALLY TRAPPED TEM WAVE)

All particles are trapped "TEM waves", they are light speed Heaviside energy
currents trapped in small looks by the gravitational field due to the energy
of the electromagnetic field, which is strong on a tiny size scale of radius
2GM/c^2 (black hole radius), see my proof in Electronics world Aug 2002,
parts on my site.

"> Has gauge boson theory been extended to allow different kinds of bosons
to coexist but ignore each other's target particles?"

YES the gauge bosons of strong interactions do exactly this, you get gauge
bosons with with different combinations of colour charge label associated
with them, eg for red , green, blue colour charges for the strong
interaction you get strong force gauge bosons called gluons coloured
red-green, red-red, red-blue, etc.

I suspect you mean to say "Has QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS gauge boson theory
been extended..." in which case the answer is only in the mechanism
suggested, not in mainstream stuff which is purely abstract algebra and
vaguer with problems on the physical interpretation, see Dr Oakley at
http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/

"> Do you recommend a two 'fluids' electrostatics as per Abbe Nollet in
1750's ?"

My understanding is that the two fluids electricity ideas had positive
currents and negative currents in conductors, with positive currents flowing
one way in each wire while negative currents flowed the other way in the
same wire at the same time. This is preserved a bit in the notion that
positive "holes" move the opposite way to electrons in semiconductors, but
obviously real positive charges we know in conductors are anchored in the
nuclei which cannot drift like electrons do. Hence the two fluids idea of
electricity is wrong for solids, but of course in a fluid dielectric such as
a battery or electrolytic system then you get oppositely charged ions
drifting to oppositely charged plates, so you do indeed get two fluids when
you deal with that. (However, I've never heard of Nollet and if he was
concocting a theory of dowsing, then it is probably far more arcane than I
can imagine from what I've read of two fluids ideas, which is limited to my
reading of Whittaker's "History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity",
1953.)

"> I understand exchange of thermal energy as balancing of I/R photon wave
energy, not of particles. Please expand on your analogy below."

OK. Here are three things that I can send from point A to point B:

(1) Heaviside continuous TEM "wave" energy (with nothing actually waving, so
we should really call it a "Heaviside-Poynting slab of non-oscillating
electromagnetic energy". This can only go from point A to point B uniformly
without oscillation of there is also a similar thing simultaneously going
the OPPOSITE way, from B to A, thereby adding to the electric field but
cancelling the magnetic field vectors (which in wires creates the infinite
self-inductance problem that prevents you from sending electric energy at
light speed in a uniform pulse down a single wire, so that you must use at
least a two wire transmission line to send mores code/logic).

(2) Small gravitationally-trapped Heaviside TEM energy, where the
Heaviside-Poynting energy spins around with its direction of propagation
forming a small closed loop of black hole radius = 2GM/c^2. This results in
a spherically symmetrical electric field and magnetic dipole. Correcting
for shielding by vacuum polarization gives the right electric charge and
magnetic dipole moment, spin is like a Mobius strip for an electron, etc.
Send one of these and you are sending an electron, which is like a particle
because it is a small loop black hole.

(3) Oscillating Heaviside TEM wave (real oscillating waves), these can
travel from place A to place B without requiring an equal simultaneous
return from B to A to be superimposed on them to allow propagation. This is
because the oscillatory nature of the wave permits it to go. Think about a
sound wave as a crude analogy. If you just breath air out, no propagating
wave occurs. You have to have a push followed by a pull, an outward
pressure force followed by an inward sucton force, to get sound to work.
Since area times pressure is outward force, Newton's 3rd law of motion
explains sound waves. See my illustrated explanation here:
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/outward-pressure-times-area-is-outward.html

To elaborate more on the exchang radiation mechanism, see this extract from
my other blog http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ :

The biggest insight provided by Woit's Not Even Wrong for me was the
simplification of loop quantum gravity:

'In loop quantum gravity, the basic idea is to use the standard methods of
quantum theory, but to change the choice of fundamental variables that one
is working with. It is well known among mathematicians that an alternative
to thinking about geometry in terms of curvature fields at each point in a
space is to instead think about the holonomy [whole rule] around loops in
space. The idea is that in a curved space, for any path that starts out
somewhere and comes back to the same point (a loop), one can imagine moving
along the path while carrying a set of vectors, and always keeping the new
vectors parallel to older ones as one moves along. When one gets back to
where one started and compares the vectors one has been carrying with the
ones at the starting point, they will in general be related by a rotational
transformation. This rotational transformation is called the holonomy of the
loop. It can be calculated for any loop, so the holonomy of a curved space
is an assignment of rotations to all loops in the space.' - P. Woit, Not
Even Wrong, Cape, London, 2006, p189.

This, the Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange process, is physically in perfect
correspondence not to the 'loop' of the creation-annihilation-creation of
matter (as illustrated at the top of this linked post), but rather to the
'loop' of the gauge boson radiation starting from one gravitational charge
(mass), going to another, and returning to the first mass again. Because the
energy carried by the gauge boson to cause force is conserved, we can
extract physical predictions and dynamics from this model. For example, if
you move masses apart, the gauge boson radiation energy at any instant is
spread over larger distances and the force strength therefore falls as it
spends more of its time in transit, and if the masses are receding from one
another, the exchange radiation is redshifted so gravity falls off over
cosmological distances. In particular, there is a correspondence between
this physical picture of what happens in Yang-Mills quantum field theory and
the way you get fundamental forces and the contraction effect in relativity,
as explained in previous posts on this blog.

Kind regards,
nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question


> Dear Nigel
>
> Is a gauge boson a particle ? yes/no
>
> Has gauge boson theory been extended to allow different kinds of bosons to
> coexist but ignore each other's target particles?
>
> Is a photon a particle ? yes/no
>
> Do you recommend a two 'fluids' electrostatics as per Abbe Nollet in
> 1750's ?
>
> I understand exchange of thermal energy as balancing of I/R photon wave
> energy, not of particles. Please expand on your analogy below.
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: The Physical Significance of the Speed of Light

Dear David,

"> I can't understand the concept of a trapped energy current.
> What is actually trapping it? And why is the speed of light involved?" -
> David

The speed of light is involved because trapped energy current is going round
in a closed loop (ie spinning) at light speed, like all TEM/Heaviside
energy. You get the radius 2GM/c^2 from general relativity or simply from
the orbital speed required to trap light:

1. acceleration due to gravity, a = MG/r^2
2. centripetal acceleration of energy with speed c and mass equivalent M (by
E=Mc^2) going in a loop of radius r is: a = (c^2)/r
3. Setting 1 and 2 equal: a = MG/r^2 = c^2/r. Multiply this out by r and we
get: MG/r = c^2, so r = GM/c^2.
4. Because classical physics is out by a factor of 2 due to kinetic energy
at low velocity being only E = (1/2)Mv^2 compared to Einstein's E = Mc^2,
the value of the mass we are using in the classical derivation of r = GM/c^2
is too low by a factor of 2, so we need to double the right hand side to
make it relativistic: r = 2GM/c^2.

Gravitation is trapping the energy into the small loop it: an inward force
from the radiation which is hitting it and bouncing back like a recoil.
This gives rise to force. The inward force in reaction to outward recession
of matter by Newton's 3rd law is F = ma where m is mass of receding matter
(mass of universe, with a correction for the higher density of universe at
immense distances where the recession speeds are greatest but before the
energy loss/redshift due to recession of the source of the radiation becomes
so great that it starts to cut off the inward reaction), and a is
acceleration = variation in speeds of recession (0 to c is linear with times
past of 0 to 15,000,000,000 years), hence a = Hc where H is Hubble constant
in reciprocal seconds (Hubble constant is velocity/distance = 1/time units)
= ~ 10^-10 ms^-2.

The outward force is thus on the order of 10^43 Newtons. It is massive!
The inward force is the same, a massive force! It keeps electrons trapped
as black holes. For more on the experimental evidence for black hole ie
gravitationally trapped energy currents such as ELECTRONS etc. (which have
an event horizon radius 2GM/c^2 ~ 10^-51 m, which is much smaller than
Planck size, refuting string theory speculation), see my Aug 2002
Electronics World article and my home page on internet
http://feynman137.tripod.com/#a , and also see the internet page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

I don't like Maxwell's theory because it leads to the Raleigh-Jeans law for
the spectrum of light which is false and was replaced by Planck's quantum
theory. I think the displacement current formula Maxwell uses is
simplistic, and that he has not got to the underlying mechanism here:
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

Since the atom contains separated positive and negative charge with an
intervening vacuum, it is a charged vacuum dielectric capacitor for purposes
of dealing with the way it gains and loses energy. The electron resists
getting an increase in charge, and jumps in kinetic energy and distance from
nucleus instead. If Yang-Mills is right for electromagnetism (there is
plenty of evidence from electroweak theory experiments that it is correct so
far as it goes), there electromagnetic forces are due to continual exchanges
of radiation between charges. The radiation is TEM wave radiation,
transverse electromagnetic. It doesn't have to wave when it is being
exchanged in an equilibrium situation, because that is like a direct current
(Morse tap or logic step) Heaviside signal being propagated with currents in
opposite directions down each of a pair of parallel conductors (a
"transmission line" in electronics jargon). With Yang-Mills exchange
radiation, the equal energy exchange in opposite directions cancels out the
magnetic field curls from each component, so vacuum magnetic self inductance
effects do not stop propagation by being infinite: they are zero. Hence you
don't need to have the gauge bosons oscillate to be exchanged between
charges. Oscillation (where the electric field varies from a peak of +v
volts through zero to -v volts in a cycle which is determined by the
frequency, and is accompanied by magnetic fields curling around the
direction of energy flow in say clockwise then stopping and then curling
inan anticlockwise direction) is only required where energy goes from A to B
without energy simultaneously going from B to A. If energy is in exchange
equilibrium, going both from A to B and from B to A simultaneously, then
there is no need for the radiation to be oscillating to propagate. Catt had
claimed that all capacitor charge in steps. Therefore, it seemed reasonable
that the reason for quantum jumps in putting energy into an atomic electron
is that the Maxwellian exponential charging curve for a capacitor - which is
based on Maxwell's displacement current equation - is the sh*t in classical
electromagnetism that needs to be corrected to convert it into quantum
reality.

Knd regards,
nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com
To: nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk;
jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:43 PM
Subject: The Physical Significance of the Speed of Light


> Dear Nigel,
> I can't understand the concept of a trapped energy current.
> What is actually trapping it? And why is the speed of light involved?
>
> I think we have to review the whole argument. Guy, Arden, Ian
> and myself all argue with each other over the details of how the electron
> positron medium is arranged, and what is making it stable. But we are all
> in agreement that EM waves are plain ordinary physical vibrations in this
> electron positron medium, and that the speed of light is a function of the
> density and transverse elasticity of this medium.
>
> As to the isue of the fundamental forces which act between
> these electrons and positrons, that is a separate topic of discussion.
>
> You are advocating a gauge boson theory to purportedly
> explain the fundamental forces. I can't see where you can bring the speed
> of light into it. The speed of light is not in any way connected with the
> fundamental forces, and there is no basis for assuming it to be. Both
> Maxwell's 1861 paper, and Simhony's exposure of the 1932 Carl Anderson
> experiment show that the speed of light is tied up with the density and
> transverse elasticity of a dielectric medium.
>
> I know that you don't agree with part III in Maxwell's
> 1861 paper, but I have never been able to understand the basis for your
> disagreement. Maxwell uses Newton's speed of sound equation. He uses the
> experimental results of Weber and Kohlrausch and he obtains the speed of
> light.
>
> What can be more convincing than that? Nothing in the
> modern textbooks disproves it. The only fault of the modern textbooks is
> that they conceal Maxwell's original methods.
>
> Yours sincerely
> David Tombe

 
At 2:31 PM, Blogger nige said...

http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-is-false-vacuum.html

Plato,

Renormalization is adjustment of charge and mass for the contributions of the vacuum to them.

Around an electron, the virtual charges in the vacuum become polarized, and this reduces the electric field at a large distance because the polarization opposes the electric field from the electron core.

Renormalization deals with the problem that the amount of polarization is not infinite. If the whole vacuum was free to be polarized around an electron, the vacuum polarization would increase until it cancelled exactly 100% of the electron's radial electric field.

Hence the electron would have no electric charge at all observable from a distance.

The physical explanation is that the polarization of the vacuum charges does not stretch out to infinity, it is limited in range to the space close to the electron core, and beyond a certain limit (corresponding to the lower limit energy cutoff in the renormalization math) no polarization can occur.

Clearly, this physics shows that the vacuum charges which are polarized are actually CREATED in the strong electric field close to the electron core, where the electromagnetic energy density (which falls as inverse square of distance) is high enough to create free pairs of charges out of the vacuum.

Quantum field theory includes annihilation and creation operators, and these must have a physical correspondence in reality.

When you get well away from mass, there is no free virtual charge in the vacuum which can be polarized. If there were, all electric fields would be 100% cancelled, so there would be no real charges.

Why can't people understand this? It is so simple. Why always call it a personal pet theory of the person saying it?

There is no zero-point energy, or renormalization would not work, because the lower limit cutoff would be zero and the polarization would extend infinitely and there would no electric charges, no atoms, no people, nothing.

Cheers,
anon.
anon | Homepage | 08.05.06 - 6:24 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Anon,

Your contributions are always appreciated.

My head is as thick as pea soup sometimes.

Renormalization Group:

In theoretical physics, renormalization group (RG) refers to a set of techniques and concepts related to the change of physics with the observation scale.


So I want to go the fastest and simplest way with the easiest explanation? What is it?

Fermions held to the brane?
Plato | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 6:16 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Plato,

Thanks for your very nice, kindly lie about your liking my intrusion of checkable mechanistic causality into your metaphysically orientated blog! Please see illustration of polarization effect here:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-polarization-of-vacuum-and.html

(Sorry I don't have a *brane* held together with bits of *string* these things do not prove helpful to physicists only to Greek philosophers who have been dead for over 2000 years.)

More:

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html

Cheers,
anon
anon | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 2:28 pm | #

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question

Dear Guy,

"> Your reference (1) below to the transmission of "Heaviside-Poynting slab
of
> non-oscillating electromagnetic energy" is presumably as a particle in one
> particular direction only (??). You point out that a simultaneous slab
> must travel in the opposite direction. This is the thing that confuses me
> most about QM; where it is (was) explained as advanced and retarded
> particles travelling in opposite directions of time . For the target to
> transmit (reflect) back at the same time, it must have pre-knowledge of
> sender unless they each travel instantaneously with infinite velocity of
> propagation in contravention of cause and effect. Yet, you write of longer
> travel time for greater distances for gauge bosons. Please explain your
> version of this synchronicity." - Guy

You are confusing it by thinking about particles and time; think about a
(very long)slab of ongoing energy moving in distance. It reaches a distant
"particle" and reflects back towards you, cancelling out the magnetic field
of further outward going radiation that has yet to be reflected. You can
understand it by sketching it; the exchange radiation is continuous like the
Heaviside slab of energy: it flows from one particle to another without
stopping, and when it reflects, there is still energy going in like a
capacitor plate charging with Heaviside energy current:
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

Prevost in 1792 didn't have to worry about how the equilibrium gets
established at the beginning of time for temperature, which was just as well
because that sort of question is ultimately going to take you back to
initial conditions in the BB or whatever you call it 15,000,000,000 years
ago. Things were more chaotic then than they are now; gravity tends to
counter the third law of thermodynamics (the increase in entropy).
Similarly, I don't need to worry too much at present about the chaotic way
that gauge boson radiation exchange equilibrium was set up in the first
place, causing gravity and making all electrons extremely similar in charge,
etc. All I need to do is to make some connections to get the ball rolling,
and produce some quantitative predictions. It will be extremely sad if I
have to work out an enormous amount of this stuff by myself, with everyone
else finding some metaphysical or prejudicial reason to shy away. Certainly
the setting up of gauge boson exchange radiation would occur prior to the
fusion of light elements in the BB, so we are talking of events within a
matter of seconds after the universe began, maybe small fractions of a
second. I would deal with that by computer simulations, varying the initial
conditions until the output matched empirical data.

Perhaps that Abbe had an inkling of the truth, as LeSage did:
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/03/george-louis-lesage-newtonian_26.html

Actually I later discovered that LeSage plagarised Newton's friend:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath041/kmath041.htm :


"We know almost nothing about Lucretius himself, except that he supposedly
went mad as a result of drinking a love potion, and killed himself at the
age of forty-four. By adopting the atomistic view, it was possible to
rehabilitate Descartes' mechanical model of gravity, and make it at least
nominally consistent with the quantitative dynamical aspects of Newton's
universal gravitation.

"The first to explicitly describe this model was a young Swiss mathematician
named Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753). Fatio had made a reputation for
himself at an early age. When just seventeen he wrote an account of the
rings of Saturn and sent it to the famous French astronomer Jean Dominique
Cassini, who was favorably impressed and responded with encouragement. Fatio
moved to Paris and worked closely with Cassini for a time. Cassini and
others tried to get Fatio admitted to the French Academy in the early 1680s,
but were unsuccessful because of Fatio's Protestant religion. These were the
years leading up to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, at which
time Fatio moved to Holland, and made the acquaintance of Christiaan Huygens
and Jacques Bernoulli. In 1686 (two years after Leibniz published his
first - admittedly cryptic - exposition of the calculus), Fatio wrote a
paper on the "problem of inverse tangents" (which we would call the solution
of first-order differential equations). This paper was sent by Huygens to
Leibniz, who replied with some polite words, but who also rejected Fatio's
claim to have discovered his own version of calculus. This and other slights
(such as Leibniz's later omission of Fatio's name from a list of
mathematicians he considered capable of solving certain challenge problems)
may have contributed to Fatio's anti-Leibniz fervor in the calculus priority
dispute. Indeed it was Fatio who, in 1699, first publicly charged Leibniz
with having plagiarized the calculus from Newton.

"In early 1687 Fatio somehow learned of a plot to assassinate the Prince of
Orange, and passed along this information to Gilbert Burnet, who informed
the authorities in time to foil the plot. Perhaps fearing that he had made
dangerous enemies, Fatio then moved to England in May of that year, where he
immediately began attending meetings of the Royal Society. At this time the
secretary of the Society, Edmund Halley, was just completing the printing of
Newton's Principia (which was officially published in July of that year). In
June, Fatio wrote to Huygens

"I already was three times at the Society Royale, where I saw proposed
rather good things sometimes, and sometimes rather poor. Some of these
gentlemen who make it up are extremely pronounced in favour of a book of
Monsr. Newton, which is being printed at present and which will be out in
three weeks time. They reproached me that I am too Cartesien, and made me
hear that, since the meditations of their author, all will be changed for
Physics. He treats in general the Mechanique of the Skies; the way in which
circular movements which are done in a liquid medium are communicated in all
the medium; gravity and of a force by which he supposes in all planets to
attract one another... This treatise, that I have seen partly, assuredly is
very beautiful, and is filled with a great number of beautiful
propositions."

"Already he was falling under the Newtonian spell. He made a study of the
Principia as soon as it was published, and immediately embraced its
conclusions, declaring that the Cartesian system was finished. At the same
time he began to conceive of a mechanism by which Newton's universal gravity
might operate. He took as his starting point the bombardment of "second
nature" particles from all directions that Descartes had proposed, but
applied it in the Lucretian universe of atoms in a void. In this context he
pointed out that, not only is the resulting force between two bodies
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, but it
can also be made essentially proportional to the masses of ordinary
macroscopic bodies by postulating that those bodies are almost entirely
transparent to the shower of "second nature" particles. This was possible
because Fatio, unlike Descartes, was not committed to the identity of space
and substance, so he could imagine that material bodies consist mostly of
empty space.

"In an unpublished treatise called "On the Cause of Gravity", which Fatio
composed around 1690, he wrote that, despite the apparent heaviness of gold,
it is entirely possible that a quantity of gold contains a trillion (1012)
times more void than substance. In support of this, he notes that water and
glass are dense materials, and yet they are almost totally transparent to
the passage of light. By the same token, he argued, it is conceivable that
all solid objects, even those that are opaque to light, could allow almost
free passage to sufficiently small particles.

"The most solid Bodies are only one extremely rare Fabric, which can exclude
rays of Light, while it lets cross the ethereal matter with an extreme
facility. If the Earth, instead of having a perfect Solidity, has many
Pores, and gives through all our terrestrial Bodies, and even through the
whole Earth and Planets, an extremely free Passage to the aforesaid ethereal
matter moving in all directions, and which causes Gravity, the preceding
Reasoning will take place for the ethereal Particles which are reflected on
Parts external of the Earth.. but in addition to these Particles, there will
be an Infinity of others. some, which will make the greatest number
incomparably, will have crossed it directly, without anything to meet.
Others will have run up, in their Way, against interior Parts.

"Thus the total number of collisions on the body is essentially proportional
to the quantity of matter, regardless of the shape or density of the body.
This aspect of Fatio's theory was not novel. Indeed it is an obvious
necessity for any such theory. For example, Huygens' wrote with regard to
his own theory on the cause of gravity (published as an appendix to his
famous treatise on light in 1691)

"The extreme smallness of the parts of our fluid matter is again absolutely
necessary to explain an observed property of weight, namely, that massive
bodies, enclosed on all sides in a vessel of glass, metal, or whatever other
material it may be, are found to always have the same weight. Thus the
matter, which we have said to be the cause of weight, passes very freely
through all the bodies deemed the most solid, and with the same facility as
it goes through the air.

"The difference between the theories of Huygens and Fatio is that Huygens
was still strongly under the influence of Descartes, and persisted in
thinking of vortices circling the earth at orbital speeds, tending to
compell ordinary static bodies downward due to a gradient in their density,
similar to a fluid pressure. In contrast, Fatio had seen the Newtonian
light, and rejected Cartesian vortices as "an empty fiction". His model
assumed a purely isotropic omni-directional flux of particles. To account
for the net force of attraction between two "coarse bodies" immersed in this
of ethereal particles, Fatio assumed that the flux particles are entirely
reflected, but with some diminished speed. In other words, the incident
particles strike the body at a very high speed, but rebound with a slightly
lower speed.

"Gravity is produced, in my view, by Exceedence of the Speed of the
Particles of this [ethereal] Matter which impinges on the Earth (for
example, or some coarse Atom of which it is composed) over their Speed when
they are reflected...

"This is actually a more sophisticated model than simply assuming total
absorption, because it recognizes that perfect reflection would result in no
anisotropy at all in the surrounding flux, and therefore no net force of
gravity, but it allows for a combination of reflection and absorption of
momentum (which is the most efficient possible model), and it avoids mass
accumulation. Fatio also stresses the fact that, to produce a given amount
of gravity, we can suppose the bombarding particles are arbitrarily small by
assuming the speeds of those particles is arbitrarily great, which
automatically diminishes the drag induced by the movement of coarse bodies
to a negligible amount. He also argued that by supposing the speed of the
ethereal particles to be extremely great, the amount by which the reflected
particles are slowed can be made as small as we wish, so there need be no
appreciable dimunition of the agitation of those particles over time.

"For the elementary constituents of coarse material bodies, Fatio imagined a
fabric or lattice structure.

"One reproached some modern Philosophers [Kepler?] for imagining the small
Particles of Matter to be geometrical and extremely regular Figures, such as
those of a Sphere, a Cube etc. Nevertheless if we reflect on how much Nature
is an excellent Geometrician in his regular Productions, for example in the
Spherical Figures of Water droplets, and Water Bubbles, and in the Figures
so geometrical and so made up of Salts of several kinds, Crystals, Snow etc,
it will appear extremely probable that they are geometrical Figures in the
smallest Particles of the Bodies, and in the largest Particles that they
compose. And this Reflexion, with the extreme Porosity of the terrestrial
Bodies, and the Proportionality which is observed between their Mass and
their Weight, can be used to gain insight into the structure of these
Particles.

"In the margin of the sheet that contains these words, Fatio sketched an
icosahedral frame, with an indication of how the triangular faces of this
framework might be further triangularized (in the pattern of the so-called
"geodesic dome" framework popularized by Buckminster Fuller in the 20th
century). ...

"Fatio valued very highly his theory of the true cause of gravity, and
managed to get Halley, Huygens, and Newton to affix their signatures to a
copy of his treatise in 1690 and 1691, attesting that they had examined it
on those dates. He also corresponded with these and other prominent
scientists about his theory, and carefully preserved their replies as proof
that these great men took his idea seriously. He was especially proud of
what he regarded as an endorsement from Newton himself:

"Sir Isaac Newton's Testimony is of the greatest weight of any. It is
contained in some Additions written by himself at the End of his own printed
Copy of the first Edition of his Principles, while he was preparing it for a
second Edition, And he gave me leave to transcribe that Testimony. There he
did not scruple to say That there is but one possible Mechanical cause of
Gravity, to wit that which I had found out: Tho he would often seem to
incline to think that Gravity had its Foundation only in the arbitrary Will
of God ...

"Of course, it's unclear how much "weight" should be given to an unpublished
note written in the margin of some proof sheets. It may actually be that
Newton and the others were just being kind to Fatio, or humoring him,
especially judging from David Gregory's statement that "Mr. Halley and Mr.
Newton laugh at Mr. Fatio's manner of explaining gravity". (Interestingly,
on another occasion Gregory remarked that "Mr. C. Wren smiles at Mr. Newton's
belief that gravity does not occur by mechanical means, but was introduced
originally by the Creator". Apparently Gregory was an acute judge of what
amused people.)

"During the years from 1689 to 1693 Fatio enjoyed an extremely close
personal relationship with Isaac Newton, and for some time they planned to
produce a second edition of the Principia together. Fatio evidently first
met Newton on the occasion of Huygens's visit to the Royal Society, when
Huygens read his treatise on light along with an appendix on "the cause of
gravity". This was another mechanistic model for universal gravitation,
based on fluidic action, quite distinct from Fatio's model. In private
correspondence Huygens critiqued Fatio's model on the grounds that the
rebounding flux particles, being slower, would necessarily be closer
together, so (Huygens suggested) the density of the flux would increase in
the vicinity of a massive body, and hence produce a repulsive rather than an
attractive force. Fatio says he himself was "detained" by this objection for
three years, but eventually convinced himself that the momentum flux of the
rebounding particles would be lower than of the incident flux, because of
the lower speed, despite the increased spatial density. Huygens conceded the
point. (More than once in Fatio's treatise he reports that "I had fully
satisfied him of that objection", and "I answered all objections that were
made to me", and so on.)

"The relationships that Fatio had with both Newton and Huygens - more or
less simultaneously - are fascinating. During the years 1691 and 1692 Fatio
shuttled back and forth between lodgings in London and in the Hague,
dividing his time between Newton and Huygens. Upon his return to England in
February of 1692 he wrote to Huygens in a state of alarm:

"Since coming back to England I can not find the Theory of Gravity which You
saw while I was in the Hague, and that I had already communicated to Messrs
Newton and Halley. If there is still some hope to find it, Sir, it is
necessary that I left it on your premise or with the Academy; which I ask
You very humbly to investigate.

"Huygens replied a few days later, saying it would be a great misfortune if
Fatio's Theory of Gravity had been lost, and telling him that he well
remembered returning it to Fatio, and that he had inquired of others (Monsr
Dierquens and Monsr Fabre) but none could find it. Also, he had not kept a
copy or extract. Fatio answered

"I send you a thousand graces for the trouble you were given to find my
Treatise on Gravity. I hope any more to never re-examine it nor to even
compose new because of a dislike and of an invincible loathing that I feel
for seeking a second time the same things as I already have.

"Oddly enough, the document turned out to be still in Fatio's possession,
and indeed the copy in question, bearing the signatures of Halley, Newton,
and Huygens, was later sent to Jacques Bernoulli in 1701 and George Cheyne
in 1735. The document was found among Fatio's possessions after his death,
and still survives.

"Having alarmed Huygens over the possible loss of his paper in February,
Fatio sent an even more alarming letter to Newton in November of the same
year. He wrote (from London, to Newton, who was in Cambridge)

"I have Sir almost no hopes of ever seeing you again. With coming from
Cambridge I got a grevious cold, which is fallen upon my lungs. I thank God
my soul has been extremely quiet, in which you have had the chief hand. Were
I in a lesser feaver I should tell you Sir many things. If I am to depart
this life I could wish my eldest brother, a man of extraordinary integrity,
could succeed me in your friendship.

"Newton was understandably distraught when he received this letter, writing
back

"I last night received your letter, with which how much I was affected I
cannot express. Pray procure ye advice and assistance of Physicians before
it be too late, and if you want any money I will supply you. I rely upon the
character ye give of your elder brother, and if I find that my acquaintance
may be to his advantage I intend he shall have it. Sir, with my prayers for
your recovery, I rest, Your most affectionate and faithful friend, to serve
you, Is Newton

"As it happens, Fatio recovered from the cold and lived for another 61
years, but not long after this incident the close relationship between
Newton and Fatio came to an abrupt end. At the same time Newton evidently
suffered a severe nervous breakdown.

"The Edict of Nantes had been revoked in 1685, and the Protestants in France
were again denied many rights they had previously held, and were subject to
a greater degree of persecution. In response to this, and prompted by a wave
of prophetic visions, a group of radical Protestants known as the Camisards
began a violent insurrection in the French countryside. During the first
phase of the revolt, many of the visionaries were children, and at one time
over 300 children were imprisoned for inciting sedition. After the movement
was put down in France, some of the leaders, including Elie (Elias) Marion,
immigrated to England in 1706, and tried to arouse support and win converts
to their apocalyptic visions. These men, who became known as the French
Prophets, went into animated visionary trances during their public sermons,
claimed to perform miracles (including raising the dead), and made
extravagant prophesies of the imminent end of the world. Fatio had been an
ardent supporter of the Camisards, and became a disciple of Elie Marion when
he arrived in England. (At this time Fatio was 42 and Marion was 28.)

"Late in 1707 Marion, Fatio, and another of Marion's followers were
convicted of blasphemy and sedition, and in December the three of them were
sentenced to be pilloried for two days. A sign was placed over Fatio's head,
reading

"Nicolas Fatio convicted for abbeting and favouring Elias Marion, in the
Wicked and counterfeit prophecies, and causing them to Be printed and
published, to terrify the Queen's people.

"In 1710 the French Prophets (along with Fatio) left England for Holland,
where Fatio was twice more sentenced to the pillory for publishing Marion's
blasphemous prophesies. Subsequently in the Hague Fatio was imprisoned for 6
weeks, reportedly at the request of some of his old friends, who wished to
separate him from the influence of Marion and the other "Brothers of Christ".
However, these efforts failed, and Fatio then accompanied Marion on travels
through Germany and other Eastern European countries, attempting to make
converts. In Turkey Marion fell ill, and died in 1712 at the age of 35.

"After this, Fatio returned to England, settling in Worcester, where he
remained for the rest of his life, dividing his time between meditations on
the prophesies and pursuing various scientific ideas. Interestingly, one of
his projects was to cast his theory on the cause of gravity in the form of a
long poem, apparently modeled after De Rerum Natura of Lucretius. In 1729 he
entered this poem in a contest held by the Paris Academy of Science, but did
not win a prize. He continued to elaborate on the theory over the years, and
even seems to have entertained doubts, perhaps influenced by the views of
Newton. In a late revision of his paper on the cause of gravitation, Fatio
wrote

"I am persuaded that what I have descrbed is the only possible Mechanical
cause of universal gravity. one can find nothing simpler nor easier than my
assumptions, as to matter and movement, that are necessary besides to return
reason to the phenomena of nature. But I acknowledge that I am not held too
assured that gravity is not an immediate effect of the will of God, and one
of the first rules by which he controls the universe.it is not impossible
nor even out of probability, that God, by a law, established that matter
attracts itself mutually, with a force proportional to its mass and
reciprocal with the square of the distance.

"It's interesting to compare these sentiments with those expressed by Albert
Einstein regarding the "unified field theory", which he felt was "necessary
to return reason to the phenomena of nature", and on which he had meditated
in isolation for the last half of his life:

"In my opinion the theory presented here is the logically simplest
relativistic field theory which is at all possible. But this does not mean
that nature might not obey a more complex field theory. [furthermore] one
can give good reasons why reality cannot be represented by a continuous
field theory at all.

"To the end of his life, Fatio remained proud of his membership in the Royal
Society, and often submitted his thoughts on various subjects to that body.
For example, in 1736 he wrote

"Sir, I think I ought to inform the Royal Society that it has pleased God
Almighty to permit that I should find the true and accurate Method of
determining a priori in Feet, the distance of the Sun from the Earth.

"He died on April 24, 1753, and was buried near the Church of St. Nicolas in
Worcester.

"About ten years after Fatio's death, another young scientist from Geneva,
named Georges Louis Lesage, was preparing to write a history of theories of
gravity, and began trying to acquire Fatio's papers. He contacted the
landlord of Fatio's last residence, and through him was able to track down
and acquire some boxes containing Fatio's papers. He was surprised to find
that the great majority of the writings were on prophetic and religious
issues (just as Lord Keynes found when he examined Newton's papers), but
among these papers he also found writings on Fatio's gravitational theory.
Oddly enough, Lesage never did write a history of gravitational theories,
but many years later (1782) he published his "own" theory of the cause of
gravity. which was nothing but a slightly less sophisticated version of
Fatio's theory. (See the note on Lesage's Shadows.) Ironically, the most
complete exposition of this theory that Lesage ever wrote was entitled
"Newtonian Lucretius", in which Lesage presented the theory as a natural
extension of the ideas of Lucretius, supposing the latter had had the
benefit of knowing Newton's laws. Lesage also mentions that he conceived the
idea for his theory of gravity when he was just a boy, conceeding that the
idea is fairly obvious.

"Indeed, the extremely simple idea of trying to explain the principal
natural phenomena by the aid of a sub­tle fluid vigorously agitated in every
direction has come to many writers who have before presented it in a vague
and ill-assured fashion, not to mention that there has been without doubt a
still greater number who have not even deigned to communicate at all. I am
well convinced that since the law governing the intensity of universal
gravitation is similar to that for light, the thought will have occurred to
many physicists that an ethereal substance moving in rectilinear paths may
be the cause of gravitation, and that they may have applied to it whatever
of skill in the mathematics they have possessed.

"It's odd that Lesage should write in this manner, as if he can only presume
that this model of gravitation has been thought of previously by others,
considering that he had been in possession of Fatio's papers for almost
twenty years. It's possible that Lesage did not have access to all the
material that has since been uncovered regarding Fatio's work, but he surely
had enough to understand Fatio's theory. At yet Lesage does not once mention
Fatio's name in this paper, which is especially surprising because -
considering the poem submitted to the Paris Academy, and Fatio's close
association with Newton - one would have to say that Nicolas Fatio was
literally the Newtonian Lucretius incarnate.

"Today the model of gravity proposed by Fatio is known almost exclusively as
"Lesage's theory", with Fatio relegated to a footnote, so Fatio was
ultimately denied even his rightful recognition as the originator of this
idea, which in any case has long since been discredited on thermodynamic
grounds. [This is a false claim; gauge boson exchange radiation does not get converted into heat as the critics of LeSage claimed it would; gauge bosons causing gravitation interact with the Higgs field particles these are massive particles which smooth out the radiation exchange and prevent heat being generated; Yang-Mills exchange radiation for electroweak theory which includes electromagnetism is well established by the discovery of the W+, W- and Zo gauge bosons at CERN in 1983 and electromagnetism exchange radiation caused forces don't result in charged bodies getting hot because it is not oscillating heat-type radiation that is being exchanged.]

Kind regards,
nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.a>; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question


> Dear Nigel
>
> Thanks for prompt reply.
>
> You refer to particles in the QFT mode which I can, just about, comprehend
> but speak of particles as if in QCD mode.
> The Abbe (acute accent on e = French Reverend(?), in the court of Louis
> XV) Nollet, a contemporary of Franklin, predated all knowledge of electric
> current in those days of static electricity. He nominated affluent and
> effluent electricity flowing into and out of pores on the glass or rabbit
> skin used to generate static charges. Rather like the QED gauge bosons. He
> was perhaps ahead of his time - and I bet he could dowse.
>
> Your reference (1) below to the transmission of "Heaviside-Poynting slab
> of non-oscillating electromagnetic energy" is presumably as a particle in
> one particular direction only (??). You point out that a simultaneous slab
> must travel in the opposite direction. This is the thing that confuses me
> most about QM; where it is (was) explained as advanced and retarded
> particles travelling in opposite directions of time . For the target to
> transmit (reflect) back at the same time, it must have pre-knowledge of
> sender unless they each travel instantaneously with infinite velocity of
> propagation in contravention of cause and effect. Yet, you write of longer
> travel time for greater distances for gauge bosons. Please explain your
> version of this synchronicity.
>
> Best regards, Guy
>
> [ps. I have paid 30p to the library to reserve a copy of Woit's book,
> which they now must obtain and thus make it available to others. Such
> altruism!]

 
At 3:18 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question


Dear Guy,

Thank you for this data.

Best wishes,
nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question


> Dear Nigel
>
> You asked for density of electron-positron bound structure.
> Simhony draws analogies to NaCl crystal and using binding energy of 511keV
> per epola ion (particle) with the same Madelung constant and range factor
> (for SRR) as for NaCl, claims a fcc lattice structure with lattice
> constant 4.4fm +/-0.5fm. This would correspond to a density of 10^13 kg/m3
> of electrons and positrons.
> David's vortex model may yield different values although 511keV binding
> energy is the same.
>
> See - http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR02/DAMOP02/baps/abs/G240006.html
> For calculation of lattice constant see
> http://www.epola.co.uk/dwnlds/Epola_pbk_ch5_to_%20p41.pdf (Menahem
> Simhony gave permission to quote his work provided proper attribution
> shown).
>
> The epo-lattice model is echoed in Catt's words from your link :
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_2.htm "An array of TEM waves which are mutually
> trapped (to form a crystal) appears to have ample degrees of freedom to
> enable it to construct a classic crystal with flat exterior surfaces
> composed of rows and columns of 'atoms'."
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: E=mc² is Newton's equation

Dear David,

The loop radius is what I calculated for you. In my Electronics World
August 2002 article I go into this: Isaac Newton showed that for any
distributed mass system, you can treat the mass as all residing in the
centre for practical purposes. Hence the distributed mass of the earth is
treated as being all in the centre of the earth when we calculate g = MG/r^2
with M = mass of earthnd r = radius of earth.

I agree that E=mc^2 can be obtained in various ways and don't think
Einstein's greatest accomplishment was that because others had already
obtained it and published it years before Einstein, and Einstein's proof is
shoddy compared to Planck's later proof of E=mc^2 which is more rigorous
than Einstein's.

Einstein's 1905 special relativity sh*t has for long been exposed by me as
such, and I take exception to your comments. The equation E=mc^2 works,
let's not exchange insults just because Einstein's sh*t proof is a lie. The
contraction is physical as FitzGerald suggested in 1889, but I don't want to
argue with you endlessly as it doesn't matter to me what you are prejudiced
against or in favour of; only the facts you provide are interesting.

The physical meaning of using c is that everything is composed of energy
current which always goes at c. I've proved how this works with spin,
predicting time dilation which has been empirically confirmed by simply
firing radioactive particles at different speeds and measuring the rate of
radiation emission.

I've already explained to you that the continuous emission of gauge boson
radiation is due automatically to the spin of a charge, because the spin of
a charge gives it centripetal acceleration a = (v^2) / r where the static
charge is trapped energy current so v = c. Regardless of the spin speed,
any spinning charge radiates energy.

Quantum field theory is the most precisely tested physical theory in
history, and forms the Standard Model of particle physics. The quantum
electrodynamics part has been tested to many decimals - not for masses or
force strengths, but for correction factors to small magnetic coupling
errors such as a 0.116 % increase in the real magnetic moment over the
simple Dirac prediction for that value, and half lives for particles.

According to this theory, forces result from the exchange of radiation which
is not otherwise detectable. You can't detect the vector boson radiation
that causes force in any way other than by forces (because of inertia, which
is a resistance of mass to accelerations).

A radio, for example, will not detect vector bosons from charges, unless of
course the charges are accelerating with a frequency that the radio is tuned
to detect. The radiation power in watts from a non-relativistic accelerated
charge is simply P = (e^2)(a^2)/[6(Pi).(Permittivity)c^3] where e is
electric charge, a is acceleration, and c is velocity of light. The
radiation occurs perpendicular to the direction of the acceleration.

If the electrons have a velocity approaching that of light (in a straight
line), the equation becomes more complex. For a logic step, the electrons at
the front can undergo a large acceleration, so because in this situation
each conductor (wire) is carrying an inverted image of the field and current
in the other, they each radiate and exchange energy at the logic front.
Furthermore, the exchange is perfect. There is no loss to the surroundings,
because the radiated signals from each conductor cancel each other out
perfectly beyond the transmission line. Hence the entire energy radiated due
to the step in each conductor is radiated to the other conductor, so each
causes the signal to propagate in the other. See the diagram and discussion
here.

The radiation (gauge bosons) and virtual particles in the vacuum exert
pressure on moving objects, compressing them in the direction of motion. As
FitzGerald deduced in 1889, it is not a mathematical effect, but a physical
one. Mass increase occurs because of the snowplow effect of Higgs boson
(mass ahead of you) when you move quickly, since the Higgs bosons you are
moving into can't instantly flow out of your path, so there is mass
increase. If you were to approach c, the particles in the vacuum ahead of
you would be unable to get out of your way, you'd be going so fast, so your
mass would tend towards infinity. This is simply a physical effect, not a
mathematical mystery. Time dilation occurs because time is measured by
motion, and if as the Standard Model suggests, fundamental spinning
particles are just trapped energy (mass being due to the external Higgs
field), that energy is going at speed c, perhaps as a spinning loop or
vibrating string. When you move that at near speed c, the internal vibration
and/or spin speed will slow down, because c would be violated otherwise.
Since electromagnetic radiation is a transverse wave, the internal motion at
speed x is orthagonal to the direction of propagation at speed v, so x^2 +
v^2 = c^2 by Pythagoras. Hence the dynamic measure of time (vibration or
spin speed) for the particle is x/c = (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2, which is the
time-dilation formula.

As Eddington said, light speed is absolute but undetectable in the
Michelson-Morley experiment owing to the fact the instrument contracts in
the direction of motion, allowing the slower light beam to cross a smaller
distance and thus catch up.

'The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion
through the aether, because the effect looked for - the delay of one of the
light waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the
matter forming the apparatus.. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy
which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute
rotation.' - Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein's general
theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the
General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp.
20, 152.

Einstein said the same:

'Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... According to the
general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.' - Albert
Einstein, Leyden University lecture on 'Ether and Relativity', 1920.
(Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15-23.)

Maxwell failed to grasp that radiation (gauge bosons) was the mechanism for
electric force fields, but he did usefully suggest that:

'The ... action of magnetism on polarised light [discovered by Faraday not
Maxwell] leads ... to the conclusion that in a medium ... is something
belonging to the mathematical class as an angular velocity ... This ...
cannot be that of any portion of the medium of sensible dimensions rotating
as a whole. We must therefore conceive the rotation to be that of very small
portions of the medium, each rotating on its own axis [spin] ... The
displacements of the medium, during the propagation of light, will produce a
disturbance of the vortices ... We shall therefore assume that the variation
of vortices caused by the displacement of the medium is subject to the same
conditions which Helmholtz, in his great memoir on Vortex-motion, has shewn
to regulate the variation of the vortices [spin] of a perfect fluid.' -
Maxwell's 1873 Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Articles 822-3

Compare this to the spin foam vacuum, and the fluid GR model:

'. the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect
fluid.. A fluid is a continuum that 'flows'... A perfect fluid is defined as
one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between
neighboring fluid elements is pressure.' - Professor Bernard Schutz, General
Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

Einstein admitted SR was tragic:

'The special theory of relativity . does not extend to non-uniform motion .
The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of
reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension
of the postulate of relativity. The general laws of nature are to be
expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that
is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally
co-variant). .' - Albert Einstein, 'The Foundation of the General Theory of
Relativity', Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=439#comment-14252 :

nigel cook Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 6:00 am
The widely agreed principle maintaining string theory is:

We are right because everyone else is wrong.

By and large the public agree - ie stringy hype works - because the public
can't get to see any alternatives clearly; this is due to the stringy hype
and censorship of physics by group think stringers. If the public could see
all the alternatives, the status of physics would be reduced from a
professional objective group enterprize into what would appear chaos. So
they have to censor out the alternatives, or physics is finished as a
respectable discipline a far as they are concerned.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=439#comment-14271 :

anon Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

"NO theory of everything is going to do any better than string theory has.
any serious attempt to deal with the Planck scale can't confront the world
in the TeV range."

Just because strings have failed miserably, doesn't prove it is impossible
for others. "Not Even Wrong (N.E.W.)" gives indirect tests such as getting
the vacuum energy in supersymmetry (unification energy) to agree with
empirical observaton.

String theory is apparently way out by an astronomical factor of 10^113
(N.E.W. page 179). Another empirical check is that according to unification
theories you should be able to predict the way one fundamental force varies
with collision energy, given measurements on how the other forces vary as a
function of energy. This is a test since data are accurate withi about 3%.
String theory fails here too (N.E.W. page 177) where the value of the SU(3)
force predicted by SUSY using SU(2) and U(1) forces is higher than
experimental data by 10-15%.

So there are a few indirect tests possible and it is conceivable that some
other theory could make progress by correct agreement with these data where
strings/SUSY can't. Another option is some theory which is so radical it may
predict masses (Tony Smith being one example) and be checked experimentally
that way.


http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=437#comment-14114 :

nigel cook Says:
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 am
". it is now hard to set up a clear criterion for what is crackpotism
(should I delete Lenny Susskind's comments if he decides to write in some
day?)." - Peter, http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=128

I feel sorry for Professor Susskind having to finally respond to your
criticisms of his theory, and doing it personally. His theory has received
all the mainstream limelight for twenty years and he is promoting his very
first book, criticisms are surfacing because now some people realise that it
may not be the most helpful theory.

I watched him on TV somewhere and he is a really nice, down to earth person,
actually he is an ex-plumber from New York who started physics a bit later
when he went to college to do a gas installation course.

So if his string theory is full of holes and leaks, then he is the best
person to fix it.

***

Notice also the suggestion on my blog that string theorists are fascists who
take prizes from warmongers and who also attend parties by an alleged
pervert who has been arrested for allegations for child abuse:
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ states in comments of top post

... the photo on Hooft's page at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/kop2.jpg
looks more like Hitler. So perhaps Hooft is not guilty of egotism, just of
fascism. ...

Peter Woit reports on his blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=440

"Nobel Prize Winning Orgiasts

"DealBreaker, which is described as "an online business tabloid and Wall
Street gossip blog", has a story about supposed Jeffrey Epstein parties "in
which Nobel prize winners and various wealthy folks were all surrounded by
young, 'nude eastern european girls, frolicking with them, and then
proceeding into one big orgy party.'" The story refers hopefully to the idea
that this might have something to do with the physics symposium in St.
Thomas funded and organized by Epstein that was mentioned here.

"Update: When I wrote this blog posting last night, it was purely based on
the posting at DealBreaker, which appeared to be a silly fantasy, based I
assumed on some highly exaggerated version of something that happened
involving consenting adults at an Epstein party. The idea of Gross-Wilczek-'t
Hooft-Hawking participating in an orgy at the conference Epstein sponsored
was obviously a joke, although perhaps a bit of a tasteless one. I was
completely unaware of the serious accusations against Epstein and of the
fact that charges have been filed against him involving his sexual behavior.
Given this context which I didn't know about, the joke isn't funny.

"Epstein has been exceptionally generous to the math and physics community
over the years. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence and I don't
think this blog is an appropriate place for discussion of his case. So I'm
shutting off further comments on this posting."

One of the commentators notes that Hawking exploited a teenage kid in 2003
and was not humiliated by the media because of his social status or medical
condition (one rule for reporting the famous, another for others): 'Stephen
Hawking is a definite suspect. He has lapdances in Peter Stringfellow's
nightclub, London, in 2003 and although most media tried to censor the news
it leaked out. The Scotsman newspaper even reports the teenage lady's name:

'"In July [2003] the Lucasian professor for Mathematics at Cambridge
University and author of A Brief History of Time spent five hours at Peter
Stringfellow's lapdance club, the Cabaret of Angels, enjoying the gyrations
of a 19-year-old dancer called 'Tiger'."

- http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=1080412003


The BBC website naturally reports that the experience was beneficial to
Professor Hawking's health:

"... I heard a rumour that Man City have just signed the lapdance-loving
Professor, Stephen Hawking ..."

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/news/btn/timhoward.shtml '

't Hooft is a crackpot for his assertion that determinism rules, while
ignoring the factual proof that determinism doesn't because of the chaos
introduced by many-body interactions of the quantum mechanical vacuum with
elementary particles. CAUSALITY, not determinism, is the deep fact.

't Hooft ignores my communications on this, which makes him BOTH egotistical
AND fascist. He sent me one email only, which was last December (2005),
asking like Smolin and Gribbin that I should remove his name from the email
circular.

He doesn't want or like physics, he claims that facts are nigel cook's pet
theory, blah blah blah.

He is a fascist and an egotist.

Nature is a discovery of the real world, not an invention of such-and-such.

His mathematical work is brilliant, but that doesn't imply he is sensible or
decent as a person.

Many thanks,
nigel cook

nigel said...

FASCISM DEFINED:

'Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your
fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible
attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism
or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of
it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the
majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted
gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the
British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived,
but not abandoned.' - Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.



FASCISTS IN PHYSICS:

Reference http://feynman137.tripod.com/
and http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d

Fact based predictions and comparison with experimental observations
'String/M-theory' of mainstream physics is falsely labelled a theory because
it has no dynamics and makes no testable predictions, it is abject
speculation, unlike tested theories like General Relativity or the Standard
Model which predicts nuclear reaction rates and unifies fundamental forces
other than gravity. 'String theory' is more accurately called 'STUMPED',
STringy, Untestable M-theory 'Predictions', Extra-Dimensional. Because these
'string theorists' suppressed the work below within seconds of it being
posted to arXiv.org in 2002 (without even reading the abstract), we should
perhaps politely call them the acronym of 'very important lofty experts', or
even the acronym of 'science changing university mavericks'. There are far
worse names for these people.

HOW STRING THEORY SUPPRESSES REALITY USING PARANOIA ABOUT 'CRACKPOT'
ALTERNATIVES TO MAINSTREAM

'Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your
fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible
attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism
or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of
it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the
majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted
gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the
British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived,
but not abandoned.' - Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.

'The creative period passed away . The past became sacred, and all that it
had produced, good and bad, was reverenced alike. This kind of idolatry
invariably springs up in that interval of languor and reaction which
succeeds an epoch of production. In the mind-history of every land there is
a time when slavish imitation is inculcated as a duty, and novelty regarded
as a crime. The result will easily be guessed. Egypt stood still.
Conventionality was admired, then enforced. The development of the mind was
arrested; it was forbidden to do any new thing.' - W.W. Reade, The Martyrdom
of Man, 1872, c1, War.

'Whatever ceases to ascend, fails to preserve itself and enters upon its
inevitable path of decay. It decays . by reason of the failure of the new
forms to fertilise the perceptive achievements which constitute its past
history.' - Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., Sc.D., Religion in the Making,
Cambridge University Press, 1927, p. 144.

'What they now care about, as physicists, is (a) mastery of the mathematical
formalism, i.e., of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care
for nothing else.' - Sir Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations,
R.K.P., 1969, p100.

'... the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg
defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the
final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics ... physics has
reached the end of the road.' - Sir Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the
Schism in Physics, Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

'. the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical
scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book 'The Logic of Scientific
Discovery']. . There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either
Heisenberg's or Bohr's subjectivist interpretation .' - Sir Karl R. Popper,
Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303. (Note
statistical scatter gives the energy form of Heisenberg's equation, since
the vacuum is full of gauge bosons carrying momentum like light, and
exerting vast pressure; this gives the foam vacuum.)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROVING CAUSALITY

More http://feynman137.tripod.com/#d (that page is not obsolete of some new
results which should - and will - be added soon, which for the meanwhile are
available on this blog, http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ ).

The mainstream is being ruthlessly maintained by:

SS (SuperString) Officers, affiliated to the GESTAPO (Great Extradimensional
Stringy Theorists And POo's)

Kind regards,
nigel

 
At 3:43 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question

Dear Guy,

Ivor Catt claims electricity has nothing to do with wires (which merely
"somehow guide" the TEM wave), and is all occurring in space around the
wires.

You have got to remember that Catt and probably Heaviside draw the
Heaviside-Poynting vector as three orthagonal arrows (each at 90 degrees to
the other two), one representing light speed propagation of the energy, one
representing electric field, and one representing magnetic field.

In fact, the correct way to draw it is different. You draw the propagation
direction arrow, and radiating out from that in all directions (not merely
one direction) you draw a bunch of electric field arrows. Then you draw
circular loops around the direction of propagation to represent the magnetic
field vector.

Now because Catt can't even draw the vector properly, he can't grasp that it
is meaningless or misleading his way. What you have is energy going along
the electric field lines, being exchanged to cause forces. You need this
because Yang-Mills U(1) electromagnetism works and tells you that electric
charge is mediated by some kind of light speed radiation.

Yang-Mills theory doesn't directly tell you the frequency of the radiation.
(Some people say the exchange radiation is like Casimir force radiation, so
there is always one wavelength between two charges. Hence you can calculate
from that a frequency for the radiation. Thus, if two charges are x metres
apart, then the gauge boson radiation on this hypothesis has a wavelength of
x metres and a frequency given by the wave axiom of f = c/x, where c is the
wave speed. However the assumption about radiation wavelength equalling
separation distance is f***ing sh*t, a TOTAL LIE, because there is no basis
for it. It is like the "Planck length" which has no physical basis at all
and is massive compared to the black hole radius of an electron, which has
basis as proved by my aug02 EW article etc.)

The frequency is apparently zero. The evidence is that it doesn't oscillate
because (1) it is in exchange equilibrium so it doesn't need oscillation to
make it propagate in free space (magnetic field inductance effects cancel
because equal energy is coming the opposite direction and cancelling out the
magnetic field inductance), and (2) there is no mechanism for it to
oscillate periodically because it is being emitted by a spinning loop which
is not a periodic phenomena; although spin it has centripetal acceleration a
= (c^2)/r which makes the charge radiate energy, it is a continuous
radiation because the charge spin is just continuous and not oscillating.

But this concept is not definite. You could alternatively argue that the
exchange radiation is actually a very hard, high energy, form of gamma
radiation which can't be detected other than as fundamental forces because
it is so penetrating that it doesn't interact like normal radiation. So
gauge boson radiation is either too low frequency to be detected as
oscillating electromagnetic radiation (ie frequency f = zero) or too high
frequency to be detected as the highest frequency electromagnetic radiation
(gamma rays). (I'm certain the frequency of gauge bosons is not equal to f
= c/x where x is distance between two charges, because I've put strong
charges x metres apart and not been able to measure any radio effects of
frequency f = c/x between them even when inducing temporary interruptions
using sheets of metal. It is very easy to detect 1 metre or 10 cm radio
waves.) However this is too problematic, because such ultra high energy,
ultra high frequency, highly penetrating gamma rays radiation would not
interact enough to cause gravity and you would end up with a horsesh*t
theory (like the many ideas on the internet that neutrinos cause gravity in
a pushing context) with abitrary "magical" characteristics chosen as fiddles
to make the theory work, not the use of natural facts which are
self-consistent and follow from empirical evidence. Neutrinos can't cause
gravity because the abundance needed to do so would make them detectable in
far, far, far, far higher numbers by nuclear reactions than the accurate
measurements reveal to be the case. So neutrino cause gravity is a lie.

Normally you would think that extremely low frequency waves are easily
stopped and higher frequencies are more penetrating, so you might imagine
crudely that gauge boson radiation of frequency f = zero (no oscillation)
would have no penetrating power at all and would be unable to penetrate
through the earth to cause gravitation in electro-gravity unification.
However, low frequencies are more penetrating than high frequencies which is
why submerged nuclear submarines in the conductive salt water ocean use very
long aerials and ELF (extremely low frequencies) to communicate: the earth's
skin depth for transmission of radio waves is very large for very low
frequencies. Penetration for frequencies below about 1 kHz is proportional
to something like 1/(square root of frequency), so as frequency falls toward
zero, electromagnetic radiation becomes ever more penetrating (obviously it
can't penetrate the actual physical cross-sectional areas of mass such as
quarks and electrons; we're talking about attenuation due to the absorption
of energy by means of the radio wave inducing oscillations of electrons, not
barrier shielding in which the radiation is simply reflected by masses).

So I'm 100% certain from all evidence that gauge boson radiation is
continuous exchange radiation with no oscillation. It represents both
electric and gravitational fields, the difference between these being due to
whether the addition of electric field is a straight line summation across
the universe (gravity, statistical mean strength = g) or a random/drunkards
walk between all similar charges due to the random spatial distribution of
two types of electric charge (electromagnetism, statistical mean strength =
g.[root N], where N is number of similar charges in universe).

Kind regards,
nigel




----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Bosons -The Defining Question


> Dear Nigel
> Great article on Fatio from mathspages! Isn't it amazing how the work of
> many great minds were published until Einstein(ism) put the hex on
> independent thought.
>
> The continuous energy slab with its simultaneous reflection is truly a
> gauging device but sounds very Machian/Brans-Dicke-ish. I just can't get
> my head around it as 'radiation' though. I'll have to think on it.
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 7:38 AM, Blogger nige said...

https://dorigo.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/top-mass-now-at-12-uncertainty/

1. nc - August 9, 2006
I’m interested in comparing this to Tony Smith’s prediction at http://valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/TCZ.html :

“The Truth Quark, through its strong interaction with Higgs Vacua, may have two excited energy levels at 225 GeV and 173 GeV, above a ground state at 130 GeV. The 173 GeV excited state may exist due to appearance of a Planck-energy vaccum with = 10^19 GeV in addition to the low-energy Standard Model vacuum with = 252 GeV.”

The new value of 171.4 +/- 2.1 is fully compatible with the 173 excited state Tony Smith gives.

 
At 8:22 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up press release; Re: Study: Spinons and holons are observed


Dear Guy,

Thanks for that PDF file. Do you know if these ideas of Simhony would also
work for a chaotic vacuum?

I can predict the maximum separation between electrons and positrons. The
duration and maximum range of these charges is easily estimated: take the
energy-time form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and put in the energy
of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second;
the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12
metre. This is far enough to deflect electrons but not enough to be observed
as vacuum radioactivity. Like Brownian motion, it introduces chaos on small
scales, not large ones:

'. the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical
scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book 'The Logic of Scientific
Discovery']. . There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either
Heisenberg's or Bohr's subjectivist interpretation .' - Sir Karl R. Popper,
Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

On average, statistically the separation will be only about half the
maximum. So I'd predict that the vacuum contains on the order of (10^-12
m)^-3 = 10^36 electrons and positrons per cubic metre, which would give a
large vacuum energy density (far larger than the dark energy epicycle
claimed falsely by the mainstream from the force-fitting of the lambda-CDM
cosmological model to the supernovae redshift data; which are better
explained by the gravity mechanism).

"Not Even Wrong (N.E.W.)" gives indirect tests such as getting the vacuum
energy in supersymmetry (unification energy) to agree with empirical
observation.

String theory is apparently way out by an astronomical factor of 10^113
(N.E.W. page 179). This is because of the small value of the vacuum energy
given by the false Lambda-CDM cosmological model.

Argument against a structured vacuum due to success of renormalization:
Renormalization is due to the adjustment of charge and mass for the
contributions of the vacuum to real charge and mass. Around an electron, the
virtual charges in the vacuum become polarized, and this reduces the
electric field at a large distance because the polarization opposes the
electric field from the electron core. Renormalization deals with the
problem that the amount of polarization is not infinite. If the whole vacuum
was free to be polarized around an electron, the vacuum polarization would
increase until it cancelled exactly 100% of the electron's radial electric
field. Hence the electron would have no electric charge at all observable
from a distance. The physical explanation is that the polarization of the
vacuum charges does not stretch out to infinity, it is limited in range to
the space close to the electron core, and beyond a certain limit
(corresponding to the lower limit energy cutoff in the renormalization math)
no polarization can occur. Clearly, this physics shows that the vacuum
charges which are polarized are actually CREATED in the strong electric
field close to the electron core, where the electromagnetic energy density
(which falls as inverse square of distance) is high enough to create free
pairs of charges out of the vacuum. Quantum field theory includes
annihilation and creation operators, and these must have a physical
correspondence in reality. When you get well away from mass, there is no
free virtual charge in the vacuum which can be polarized. If there were, all
electric fields would be 100% cancelled, so there would be no real charges.
Why can't people understand this? It is so simple. Why always call it a
personal pet theory of the person saying it? There is no [free] zero-point
energy, or renormalization would not work, because the lower limit cutoff
would be zero and the polarization would extend infinitely and there would
no electric charges, no atoms, no people, nothing.

This argument pertains to free, polarizable charge in the vacuum distant
from matter; obviously if there was non-free charge present that could not
be polarized to cancel out free charges, then you could still have some kind
of structured or chaotic Dirac Sea. This would have to either be so chaotic
that polarization could not be set up because the particles' motions are too
energetic and random to be ordered at all by polarization at long distances
from a charge (this is the most likely explanation as it has a full
mechanism and makes predictions which are checkable and so far as tested so
far, are in excellent agreement with experimental reality), or so structured
such as by a lattice arrangement that weak electric fields are unable to
polarize the charge because the charge remains stuck in the lattice unless a
minimum work function energy is supplied to free the charges so that they
can then be polarized (this is less likely because any lattice structure to
the vacuum would seem to break down the isotropic freedom of radiation to go
at the same velocity in all directions, if radiation is mediated by the
virtual or 'displacement charge' currents in the vacuum as classical
electromagnetism suggests).

So the evidence points to a chaotic vacuum which has so much energy it can't
be ordered (polarized) to any significant extent except by very intense
electromagnetic fields close to the core of an real (long-lived) electron or
other long lived charge.

Kind regards,
nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com; "Nigel Cook"
nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up press release; Re: Study: Spinons and holons are
observed


> Dear Jonathan
>
>>........ Interesting that Simhony
>> predicted some things that are confirmed by
>> experiment, and that the venues where he made the
>> prediction are not trumpteting the success!
>>(Sent JVP : Monday, July 17, 2006 6:58 PM)
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/abs/nature04973.html (
> Nature Letters, p546, 3rd August 2006, Interplay of electron-lattice
> interactions and superconductivity in .....) also at
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/8/4
>
> ........ explanation of which (for phonon interaction suspected from
> 1960's)
> was the subject of Simhony's presentation at Phonons89, Heidleberg
> "Physical Nature of Phonons and Photons and their Role in Conduction and
> Superconductivity", Poster Presentation at the 3rd International
> Conference
> on Phonon Physics, Heidelberg, Germany 1989.
>
> Article in the book by S.Hunklinger et al (Eds.), Phonons 89, World
> Scientific, Singapore 1990, pp. 175-177.
>
> I have attached copy of his document. As you will see, the heresy colours
> the facts.
>
> Best regards, Guy
>
>

 
At 12:52 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up press release; Re: Study: Spinons and holons are observed

Dear Guy,

Disorder is the lowest state of any system, and higher energy states lead to
more order. You have to expend energy to create order from chaos.

Gravitational potential energy is used up, for example, in working against
entropy to create order. At 300,000 years after BB, everything was at the
same temperature to within one part per so many thousands. Today, the
interior of the sun is at 15,000,000 K, compared to spaces between galaxies
which are at just 2.7 K. Hence the ordering which has been done by gravity
to create dissimilarities in temperatures in the universe (when there were
none significant at the beginning) has used up a vast amount of
gravitational potential energy. From the gravity mechanism I'm promoting,
the source of the gravitational potential energy is ultimately in the
expansion of the universe itself; expansion causes gravity as a
mass-shielded inward reaction force or radiation flowing in to fill volume
being vacated by outward moving matter. Both of these last statements are
in exact mathematical equivalence as proved at
http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h and with illustrations at
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/important-note-to-users-of-web-browers.html

For the vacuum to be ordered at the ground state would reverse the idea that
you supply energy to a disordered state to create order. Your idea is
incompatible with renormalization because for vacuum polarization to occur
in strong fields near charges, you really are going to get in a mess from a
structured orderly ground state. Polarizing a gas of charges in a ground
state which is chaos is straightforward. If you want to account for the way
vacuum polarization works with an ordered, structed vacuum you have to
specify an absolute energy at which the ordered structure breaks down to
release polarizable free charges. This is incompatible with nature of
renormalization, where it is scalable in some sense since you can take
different cutoff energies depending on the situation. The key problem to be
solved is to plot fundamental force strengths as a function of distance from
the core of various particles (electron, quark), instead of plotting
strength versus collision energy. See illustrations of forces as function
of energy a
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/02/heuristic-explanation-of-short-ranged_27.html .

The key problem is to produced a detailed vacuum polarization model which
explains this, and to do so by plotting vacuum polarization (shielding) as a
function of distance from a particle core. Then we need to work out how
much energy is being tied up in causing the vacuum polarization, and use
this quantitative calculation to work out how other forces vary. A loss of
electromagnetic force strength at long distances, for example, will be make
up for by the strong nuclear force at short distances. Conservation of
energy will therefore allow a mechanistic, quantitative undersanding of how
force causing energy is being used at all distances. You have to understand
that Gauss' and Green's theorem is important; long-range redshifts aside,
the total amount of exchange radiation energy which causes force that
crosses the spherical area at any given radius around a particle, in a given
interval of time, is the same regardless of the distance from the particle
core. The amount of exchange radiation going towards a particle core is
equal to that coming from the particle core where there is no acceleration
of the particle.

Where there is an acceleration of the particle, the kinetic energy is
supplied from the fact that during acceleration the rate the particle
receives incoming exchange radiation will exceed the rate at which it
radiates it. This will be tied up to other processes, such as the
FitzGerald contraction of the particle due to its motion, the appearance of
a magnetic field due to motion of charge (electrons have a magnetic dipole
moment anyway form spin; I'm not referring to this), and time-dilation. I'm
confident to have a good model for what happens in outline, but want to make
a full mathematical model to account for gauge boson energy usage with
differential equations. By understanding the vacuum phenomena
quantitatively, force unification should be possible. All the evidence I've
compiled indicates that the vacuum is totally chaotic in the ground state.
See
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/07/quantum-field-theory-quantum-yang.html
for some ideas on mass.

Kind regards,
nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham"
epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
; "jonathan post"
jvospost2@yahoo.com; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up press release; Re: Study: Spinons and holons are
observed


> Dear Nigel
> No, the ordered, stable, lowest energy state of a solid crystal gives the
> essential properties to the epola.
> Your comment to David today, about speed of sound in air with adiabatic
> compression relates, in a crystalline solid the speed of sound would not
> be affected thus.
> The bound state can be regarded as negative energy state, chaotic epo-soup
> would not!
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 3:03 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; Monitek@aol.com; "Ian Montgomery" imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com
Cc: tom@tomspace.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; andrewpost@gmail.com; "Jack Graham" graham@megaquebec.net; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up press release; Re: Study: Spinons and holons are observed


Dear Guy,

Entropy: it depends what you count as parts of the system, whether you
include the vacuum, what source you allow if any for the cause of gravity,
etc.

How can there be any stable vacuum electron-positron lattice if there is
freedom? What stops it from becoming chaotic? When an electron and a
positron come slightly closer together, why don't they accelerate closer
until they annihilate into gamma rays? In fact, this is what happens. It
is chaotic. There can't be any stability in a lattice of opposite chrages
having equal masses, or there is nothing to stop annihilations. In atoms
the dynamics are different, you have a heavy nucleus which provided lattice
stability since it has only about 1 part in 2000 of the velocity of the
electrons.

Kind regards,
nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: Monitek@aol.com; "Ian Montgomery"
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "David Tombe"
sirius184@hotmail.com>; "jonathan post" jvospost2@yahoo.com>; "Nigel Cook"
nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
Cc: tom@tomspace.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov;
andrewpost@gmail.com; "Jack Graham" graham@megaquebec.net;
pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; "Johann Marinsek" marinsek@aon.at
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up press release; Re: Study: Spinons and holons are
observed


> Dear Nigel
>
> Entropy of the whole system, not any (part of a) system...!
> The latching of epo's into lattice sites allows each epo many degrees of
> freedom and thus they can and do vibrate about their normal position quite
> randomly; entropy of the system is not decreased.
> http://www.epola.co.uk/faq/FAQ.htm#faq19
> The event of crystallisation releases heat - 511keV per epo. The
> background radiation you enjoy is more likely a foreground radiation from
> the heat evolved during crystallisation exhibited as those random
> vibrations
> (temperature) of the epo's in their lattice sites.
>
> The energy of 1.022 MeV required to free a pair of epo 'ions' from the
> lattice is less than the total energy of either the electron or ositron
> which possess much more energy in their intrinsic spins, it is not a
> 'creation' event.
>
> Crystals are stable, many even in in unsaturated solutions. If not you
> would
> not find that all solids (tongue in cheek) seek a crystal packing
> structure
> unless overly excited by heat.
>
> 'Gravitational' energy is insignificant in relation to interfering epo's
> if
> left to blunder about!
>
> Vacuum polarisation occurs near strong charges when sufficient enrgy is
> focussed from a gamma pulse in that stressed region.
> If you refer to probing with high energy beams or particles to reveal the
> increased Coulombic force at close to an electron , that might be due to,
> I
> suggest, proximity to the short range repulsion.
>
> Consider this new evidence?
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 3:05 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; epola@tiscali.co.uk; jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: A Sea of Little Gymnastic Gyroscopes



Dear David,

You are clearly right to some extent, but the question is to exactly what
extent? The conventional picture is undoubtedly valuable unless it can be
disproved. The conventional picture is that these things you say can only
be transitory effects which occur to charges in the brief time before they
annihilate with opposite charge to give gamma rays. Take the energy-time
form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an
electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the
maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12
metre.

The key thing to do would be to calculate the transmission of gamma rays in
the vacuum. Since the max separation of charges is 10^-12 m, the vacuum
contains at least 10^36 charges per cubic metre. If I can calculate that
the range of gamma radiation in such a dense medium is 10^-12 metre, I'll
have substantiated the mainstream picture!!!!

The shielding of gamma radiation in ordinary matter depends on the gamma ray
energy. Above 1 MeV gamma ray energy, you get pair-production by nuclei
influencing shielding, which is not of interest for the vacuum where we are
mainly dealing with electrons (they have a much longer life in the vacuum
than any heavier particles, according to Heisenberg's energy-time
uncertainty formula). The actual energy of the gamma rays we are dealing
with in the vacuum is I expect either 0.511 MeV or 1.022 MeV, i.e., exactly
once or twice the rest-mass energy of an electron (because the gamma rays
come from electron-positron annihilation). Normally you get two gamma rays
when an electron and positron annhilate (the gamma rays go off in opposite
directions), so the energy is probably 0.511 MeV,

This is actually close to the average gamma ray energy of nuclear weapons
fallout a few days after detonation. The penetration of such radiation
depends almost entirely upon the Compton effect, which is calculated by the
Klein-Nishina formula of quantum mechanics.

All I have to do is to find the mean free path for 0.511 MeV gamma rays
(Compton effect scattering of gamma rays by electrons or positrons) in a
medium of 10^36 electrons/m^3. I could do this by looking up the distance
for the mean free path of cuch gamma rays in water (as given in books on
water shielding for nuclear waste) and then scale the distance according to
the density of water in electrons/m^3 as compared to the vacuum which has
10^36 electrons/m^3.

I'll do this when I have a chance. It is possible I'll be way off and that
the energy of the gamma rays is much higher (it can't be lower than 0.511
MeV). The point is I think you have only half the picture, ie that dealing
with vacuum effects that emerge after charges are created but before they
annihilate back into gamma rays.

Kind regards,
nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com
To: epola@tiscali.co.uk; nigelbryancook@hotmail.com;
jvospost2@yahoo.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:13 PM
Subject: A Sea of Little Gymnastic Gyroscopes


> Putting it in layman's terms, I'm pretty sure that you will all eventually
> realize that space is filled thick with little femtoscopic gymnastic
> gyroscopes, which undergo all manner of synchronized distortions. These
> synchronized distortions are broadly classed as polarization, but there
> are two distinctly observed aspects of polarization ie. linear
> polarization and magnetization.
>
> The rotating electron positron dipole is a gyroscope and a bar magnet all
> in one.

 
At 1:35 PM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of a comment to the blog Not Even Wrong:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=444

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=444#comment-14521

nigel cook Says:

August 12th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
“The Copenhagen interpretation was not simply thrown together from mathematical equations. It too was only reached after decades of experimental data that supported it. And finally the standard model was only proposed and accepted after countless meticulous and detailed experiments gathered vast amounts of cold hard data.” - Obsessive Maths Freak

But the Copenhagen interpretation is an ad hoc philosophy not a mathematical prediction technique, and it doesn’t make unique predictions that have been tested, so you can’t lump it with the Standard Model that does make predictions, has been tested.

There is an industry within physics run by full time science fiction writers who do mathematical philosophy of physics part time, and after about 1916 that was what Bohr did. OK, he did some useful applied nuclear physics theory such as determining u235 is the fssioning nuclide in natural uranium, but he just sprouted content-less, ad hoc, abjectly speculative philosophy when writing about the nature of reality and the future of theoretical physics. He claimed the Copenhagen Interpretation in 1927 solved everything completely for all time by separating and so outlawing any progress understanding of how classical and quantum electrodynamics can be reconciled:

‘… the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics … physics has reached the end of the road.’ – Sir Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [between virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum and real electrons, etc.], as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

 
At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New comment seen on Lubos Motl's blog (copied here in case it gets deleted by accident by Motl):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/08/time-magazine-physics-is-sin.html

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/115554706659462599/?a=51484#581321

Dear Chinmaya Sheth,

No it is not reasonable. Sean Carroll dismisses as crackpot all alternatives to string because they haven't got proper funding.

Consider the likes of Lubos Motl and Sean Carroll. They defend strings using abuse of other people, although the situation is far worse in Lubos Motl's case.

Neither are ignorant, but both have a bigoted, unscientific attitude which states that so many people working on strings must be right somehow.

That is the way scientific tragedies occur. Lubos Motl's defense of string theory has no more scientific content to it than Joseph Goebbel's defense of Nazism. It is propaganda.

Sean Carroll and Lubos Motl have no scientific defense of stringy shit. Sean says string shit is good because so many "brilliant" people can't all be wrong, whereas Lubos says string theory is more empirical than evolution. Both are nuts.

They are crackpots. One of them is a commie and one a fascist, it reminds you of the uneasy alliance between Hitler and Stalin in the 1939 German-Russian Peace Pact.

Kind regards,
anon.
anon | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 12:12 pm | #

 
At 5:19 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of a new comment of mine to Cosmic Variance on picturing quantum field theory visually:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/15/wanted-your-ideas/


nc on Aug 17th, 2006 at 7:00 am
Hi JoAnne,

To produce an accurate graphic you need to translate the force strengths as a function of collision energy into force strengths as a function of distance from the particle core.

I think this is crucial to visually appreciate what is going on with the mass-generating Higgs field and also what the polarization of the virtual charges in the vacuum physically looks like (how far it extends for each species of virtual particle, etc) around a real (long-lived) particle. The usual talk of force strengths as a function of collision energy is misleading because it is not clearly explained to people that this means forces becomes stronger at closer range.

Ie, the electromagnetic force does not obey Coulomb’s law: at very close-in distances it rises faster than the inverse-square of distance because apparent charge rises. At 92 GeV electric charge is 7% stronger as measured in lepton scattering experiments.

Clearly the charge polarization is strongly linked to the Higgs mechanism because BOTH the electric charge and the particle mass are renormalized quantities: the bare charge and mass are larger than the observed values at a long distance. Because Yang-Mills exchange theories are behind the standard model which is well verified empirically, you therefore get a picture whereby exchange radiation is being shielded by the vacuum to create the charge variation. There is no reason why the exchange radiation energy should not be conserved like other forms of energy, so the absorption of this energy in the shielding region of vacuum charge polarization is used somehow. In that region you get short range nuclear forces, including massive weak gauge bosons, so it is perfectly feasible that the attenuation of the core electric charge gauge bosons near a particle creates strong forces. This allows numerical predictions, because you can calculate precisely how much electrmagnetic field energy is being lost due to shielding, and this will be how much nuclear force energy will be increased. Data are already available on this, allowing checks to be made.

At low energies, the experimentally determined strong nuclear force strength is alpha = 1 (which is about 137 times the Coulomb law), but it falls to alpha = 0.35 at a collision energy of 2 GeV, 0.2 at 7 GeV, and 0.1 at 200 GeV or so. The electric force strength increases from alpha = 1/137 at low energies to 1/128 at 92 GeV. So as one force falls, another rises, suggesting that the energy carried by all gauge bosons is conserved at any given distance from a particle (or collision energy, since higher energies imply closer distances).

A switch in general thinking towards graphical illustrations of polarization and force effects as a function of distance would help to make the dynamics clearer for the mass causing Higgs mechanism. Clearly there is a close association between the massive W and Z gauge bosons and the mass carrying “Higgs” boson. Just as old CGS units created problems for physicists in some areas, so the convention of thinking of forces as a function of energy rather than distance makes it needlessly abstract. A pictorial way of thinking may help progress, but will require much work because it is hard to work out the exact distance of close approach in high energy collisions because of the complexity of inelastic scatter reactions.

 
At 3:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

crackpot Nobel laureate

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/08/greene-and-smolin-audio.html

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/115594270803257915/?a=39777#584330

't Hooft is proved wrong; the Poincare chaos of the virtual charges of the vacuum prevents determinism. See also Dr Oakley's comments on 't Hooft's Nobel here: http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/
nc | Homepage | 08.19.06 - 6:39 am | #

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger nige said...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446#comment-14808

nc Says:

August 19th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
‘The situation with SUSY is actually worse than non-SUSY, because in a non-SUSY theory the vacuum energy is not something that you can calculate even in principle.’

sir popper showed heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a scattering relation for charge creation/annihilation in the vacuum.

Take the energy-time form of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre.

Since the separation of charges is ~10^-12 m, the vacuum contains ~ 10^36 charges per cubic metre. each charge is .511 MeV hence ~ 10^36 MeV per cubic metre is the vacuum energy density.

 
At 2:10 AM, Blogger nige said...

The argument in previous comment is based on minimum energy of vacuum (ground state). Shorter ranges of particles in Popper's scattering theory would correspond to higher vaccuum energy states as occur in strong electromagnetic fields near charged matter (muons etc have shorter ranges by Heisenberg's formula, hence higher vacuum energy density).

Woit deleted it, you can't blame him for keeping his blog's comments closely on topic, and I'm not complaining as it is published here (above). Another comment:


http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446#comment-14815

anon Says:

August 20th, 2006 at 4:45 am

‘There are plenty of people out there whose ideas about physics are uniformly incoherent and easy to dismiss, but there are also cases like Hagelin, who combines excellent research credentials with crackpot ideas about science. How do you decide who is a crackpot and who isn’t? What about Lubos, what about Susskind?’ -Woit

‘… Woit … prefers to falsify theories by collecting 50 angry crackpots who doom a theory without a glimpse of a rational scientific argument. I am sure that most of us including the Bogdanov brothers know that this is not how ideas and theories in physics can be rejected, which is why it is rather legitimate to count Peter Woit as a crackpot regardless of the fact that he would prefer, together with his brainless readers, to choose this title for Lenny Susskind, one of the most original physicists of our time.’ - Motl

I think Woit should try to find the time and the patience to explain gently and kindly to Motl that physics is ultimately based on facts, and stringy stuff isn’t. (I’ve tried, but lack sufficient tact to succeed.)

Stringy Bogdanov published a paper in peer-reviewed IoP Classical and Quantum Gravity, which later retracted its endorsement for the paper because it had no rational argument.

Bogdanov didn’t have a PhD, but was awarded one for getting his paper in CQG and virtual copy in another journal. He still has the PhD…

 
At 2:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/08/greene-and-smolin-audio.html

Dear Lubos,

Could you make comment on Popper-based calculation of energy density of vacuum, please:

‘... the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [between virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum and real electrons, etc.], as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. ... There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation ...’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

Take the energy-time form of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre.

Since the separation of charges is ~10^-12 m, the vacuum contains ~ 10^36 charges per cubic metre. each charge is .511 MeV hence ~ 10^36 MeV per cubic metre is the vacuum energy density.

If muons are 205 times the mass of electrons (or whatever), then they are only 1/205 or 0.5% as abundant as electrons and positrons in the vacuum, assuming that they are equally to be formed. The shorter lifetime does allow us to make estimates. I calculated that for electron-positron pairs the mean life is ~10^-21 second; so the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre. For muons, this time and range would be reduced by a factor of 205 or whatever. For quarks, the reduction factor is still greater.

The argument above for the vacuum energy density of 10^42 eV/m^3 is based on minimum energy of vacuum (ground state). Shorter ranges of particles in Popper's scattering theory would correspond to higher vaccuum energy states as occur in strong electromagnetic fields near charged matter (muons etc. have shorter ranges by Heisenberg's formula, hence higher vacuum energy density).

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: p.x ~ h. Hence since E~pc and x~ct, we have p.x ~ [E/c].[ct] ~ Et ~h. (E is uncertainty in energy, t in time, x in range, p in momentum.)

Kind regards,
anon.
anon | Homepage | 08.20.06 - 5:33 am | #

 
At 5:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446#comment-14819

anon Says:

August 20th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Dear Lubos,

your confusion about Feynman and stringy stuff was predicted and explained by Feynman:

‘… I do feel strongly that this [string theory] is nonsense! … I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories - absolutely none! …’ – Feynman in Davies & Brown, ‘Superstrings’ 1988, at pages 194-195

Feynman said, in his 1964 Cornell lectures (broadcast on BBC2 in 1965 and published in his book Character of Physical Law, pp. 171-3):

‘The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but [with extensive knowledge of the actual facts rather than speculation] you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. … There will be a degeneration of ideas, just like the degeneration that great explorers feel is occurring when tourists begin moving in on a territory.’

Sheldon ‘string theory has failed in its primary goal’ Glashow - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html

‘Sheldon Glashow has strong opinions about string theory. Like how it has failed in its primary goal of incorporating gravity into the standard model of elementary particles. How its inability to be experimentally tested makes it ‘‘permanently safe’’ from either proof or falsification.’

Hope you are now less confused.

Kind regards,
anon.

 
At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446#comment-14851

anon Says:

August 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Dear Lubos,

‘You will see that string theory is the only framework to think about virtually all possible experimental observations in the future at a deeper level than the level “look, we see something”: supersymmetry, axions, dark matter, details of grand unification, small black holes, and so forth, and so forth.’

Sure, stringy stuff is a good framework for planning sci-fi, but it isn’t making unique checkable predictions that could falsify it when tested. The nearest you come is with the soft scattering spectra, but even if that is real, it could just have another cause. The best experimental checks on string theory will be open to other interpretations, because it is so vague. String theorists are careful to kick in new alternative ideas like Smolin’s while they are still infants, before they can grow into a viable threat to stringy stuff.

Many claimed stringy predictions, such as large 0.1 mm-sized extra dimensions, are just not falsifiable. If the strings aren’t found, maybe you just rule out that sub-version of string theory or else blame the sensitivity of the experimentalists. You dismiss such critics as Feynman and Glashow as senile or crackpot, while asserting uncheckable, speculative, empty frameworks instead of building on facts!

As for the Bogdanov’s, the tale is that there were two brothers, one of which was failed his PhD examination and was told to get peer-reviewed stringy papers published before he received the degree. After publication, he was awarded the PhD. This story is almost as fantastic as string theory itself, so maybe it’s just half-truths/lies. I’ve abused Woit’s hospitality enough so had better end here.

Kind regards,
anon.

 
At 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very important political comments from Tony Smith and other on Woit's Not Even Wrong blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446#comment-14866

Tony Smith Says:

August 20th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Arun asked “… supposing some one does come up with a good idea, how do we make sure it doesn’t perish unheard?
It seems obvious to me that there are more hospitable and there are less hospitable environments for good new ideas;
do we have have any way of improving the environment? …”.

My ideas about that (which I have stated before in other comments and elsewhere, so my apologies for redundancy) are:

No consensus-monopoly view should be allowed to suppress alternative approaches.
A thousand flowers should bloom,
and all important institutions (university departments, laboratories, institutes, etc) should encourage active investigation of ALL the blossoms,
by rewarding grad students, post-docs, etc., for work on whatever they find interesting.
If a studied model turns out to be wrong, then the work showing it to be wrong should not be considered a worthless negative result, but a useful contribution (like weeding a garden) to advancing physics by cultivation,
and such negative results should be just as important as positive ones in getting publications, Ph.D.’s, post-doc jobs, and faculty appointments.

A big problem in implementing such an environment is that it would do away with closed good-ol-boy dominant-paradigm networks in which good-ol-boy A gives postdoc jobs, etc, to grad students etc of good-ol-boy B and all the good-ol-boys (and their grad students etc) always enjoy big barbecues in which all the HEP-theory pork is spread around among the Members of the Club.

Such Pork Clubs are very hard to get rid of in any human community, whether it be Congress or HEP or anything else. Even if a “Reformer” comes along and defeats the “Entrenched Machine”, most of the time the “Reformer” just becomes a new “Emperor” (which is why Beethoven’s Symphony 3 was not named for Napoleon).

Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

PS - Even Beethoven had difficulty getting great new ideas accepted by the establishment.
According to some CD liner notes by Constantin Floros:
“… When the news was brought to him that one of his [late string] quartets, played by Schuppanzigh, had met with a poor reception, he [Beethoven] said laconically: “One day it will please them.” …”.

More Scenes From the Storm in a Teacup, I - Asymptotia Says:

August 21st, 2006 at 3:18 am
[…] Aaron Bergman has written an extensive review of Peter Woit’s attack-book on string theory. I’ll let you read the thoughtfully written 11-page pdf document linked there. I think that Aaron deserves some sort of medal or other award for making the effort. Peter responded here. […]

Peter Shor Says:

August 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
You say that

Aaron notes that most of the audience at the Toronto panel discussion voted against the anthropic landscape, but he doesn’t mention that anthropism seemed to be a majority opinion amont the panelists, who are the ones who hold power. This is an extremely dangerous situation for this field.

Is antropism the majority view among the string theorists that hold power, or just the loud ones? Because it seems to me that there are a few very loud, somewhat crackpot, string theorists, who have discovered that spouting lots of speculative nonsensical stuff brings them publicity. There are also a number of fairly sane string theorists who have relatively little to say right now because the field is only making very slow progress at the moment. And for some reason, the sane string theorists are too polite or too afraid to say anything negative about the loud ones. The sad part would be if, in the current climate, spouting loud, interesting-sounding, nonsense is a good way to advance ones career.

Peter Woit Says:

August 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Peter,

Besides certain loud ones (Susskind), the anthropic landscape is promoted by quite a few less loud but very prominent theorists. Examples include Harvard’s Nima Arkani-Hamed, as well as Joe Polchinski, Michael Douglas, Shamit Kachru. I’m sure there are lots of theorists who are not happy with the anthropic landscape, but at this point I think most of them accept the idea of the landscape, if not the anthropic part. Most remarkably, the only string theorist I know of who seems willing to publicly criticize anthropism is David Gross.

ksh95 Says:

August 21st, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Bob commented:


Neither you nor Lubos can point to any objective standard which could be used to make the decision, though you will both claim that objective standards exist which your opponent fails to meet, but neither of you can specify them.

The standard is and always has been clear: in the absense of experimental evidence the group that can accumulate the most power becomes correct.

 
At 4:33 PM, Blogger nige said...

In 2002 I left Weybridge with £60,000 or about $100,000 handy to study and publish a book. Unexpectedly, as is the way in life when you are prepared for a struggle, my luck was in and I published the key insights in Electronics World without having to do a book. Money is not much use really, ideas can't be produced to order. You can acquire some vital education, but that's all.

I like Smolin's new website http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/ and wish Peter Woit would go downmarket too in order to reach out to more people.

Just hope both Smolin and Woit stay clear of wishful thinking. The ball of dirt called romantically "pale blue dot" by Sagan is just DIRT. You can't disguise or cover up dirt in the long run. It's under the rose beds, under the rivers and under the oceans. Everything is BUILT ON DIRT. Hope the romantic philosophers have science sense enough to see that as a hard objective fact, and not merely pet theory or opinion on my part. The world is based on DIRT as its foundation. Prejudice always supports those who try to cover up the wholesome dirty origins of food and water. Thus, evolution was a dirty theory because it explained a mechanism for the differences between species including man and distant cousins such as apes. Evolution wasn't hated in England because it was in contradiction with the literal text of Moses in the Bible, but because it was a mechanism most people didn't want to think about in the mindset of the Victorian era. This is different perhaps from modern objections from extremely religious American fanatics who believe in word for word literal truth from the Bible (even presumably the made up stories Jesus would tell to communicate moral messages, which begin "A man had two sons...").

There is truth in the fact that a lot of decent things are built on a foundation of dirt.

I'm obviously not happy calling 't Hooft an unhelpful person or a dishonest commentator. However I may get the opportunity to replace this post in the future.

One thing you should be aware is that the amount of concentration and effort needed to get even very small (claimed) results in science can be very great, and can break down social life for outsiders. Those in science are in a kind of cosy barbeque club, as Tony Smith comments above, so the price they pay has its rewards - albeit in a small way - all the time.

The outsider has very little hope of being taken seriously by the orthodoxy of the day. I have none. But I have very little to say anyway. Certainly you don't do science for gold or riches. It is not a fair sport where outsiders have any chance of being respected anymore. More likely, innovators are subject to snobbery from the top ranks.

I have to say I admire 't Hooft's statement on Smolin's advertisement:

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

EARLY PRAISE FOR THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS

“Superstring theory forms a vast and impressive mathematical framework and makes enormous claims. But where is the experimental evidence? What if your intuition tells you that this elaborate construction, shrouded by the sweet vagueness of quantum mechanics, cannot represent the complete truth? Lee Smolin is keeping his eyes open, asks sharp questions, and offers his delightful insights as a critical insider.”

--Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, University of Utrecht


I'm really glad that 't Hooft wrote that. It would have been better if he could help Smolin and Woit more actively but given his crackpotism I suppose that is unfeasible.

I like Tony Smith's suggestions quoted in the previous comments, and ksh95's concluding remark:

"The standard is and always has been clear: in the absense of experimental evidence the group that can accumulate the most power becomes correct."

Like dirt, wars are ESSENTIAL for disposing of stubborn enemies who won't get out of your way when requested politely.

I'm anti-war in the sense that I think it better to deter wars than for everyone to get massacred, but wars are crucial to maintain civilization when the stakes are high and the risks are low. Science always does very nicely out of war, which funded missiles leading to space exploration, nuclear physics leading to vast increases in knowledge, and so on. There needs to be a basic change in thinking, with warfare being seen as less repulsive and more logical and natural in the proper circumstances when it is needed. A preventative war with the string theorists back in the late 1980s would prevented the bandwaggon fiasco that exists today, while a preventative war with Hitler in 1935 could have prevented the carnage of WWII. But of course it is not really practical. If ou prevent a disaster, nobody is happy. The newspapers generally will dwell on the small carnage whih occurs in the preventative war, ignoring the larger disaster which was successfully averted. The second Gulf War should not have occurred because Iraq should have been disarmed when it gassed the Kurds in 1988, or when it invaded Kuwait a few years later. Always politicians must await a raging fire before they can feel safe to act, which is usually too late to save the situation properly.

 
At 4:42 PM, Blogger nige said...

http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/08/dark-matter-lay-bare.html

nigel said...
Hi Christine,

If I can offer some commentary; the vacuum contains pairs of virtual charges which annihilate into gamma rays and then the gamma rays - passing through a strong electromagnetic field near another virtual charge - undergo pair production, so the cycle repeats chaotically.

It's completely clear that all 'dark matter' effects have their roots in the nature of the vacuum.

The lower limit cutoff for vacuum polarization, needed to explain renormalization, implies the vacuum is not simply a uniform sea of polarizable charge (or the vacuum charge polarization would continue for a limitless distance, exactly cancelling out all real charges - which does not happen).

I'm curious that you calculate a Compton scatter cross section for dark matter in your paper http://www.geocities.com/christinedantas/poster2.pdf

The type of scatter depends on the hypothetical nature of the dark matter. The energy range of 2-20 GeV is interesting (are these reliable error limits?) but doesn't convince me supersymmetric matter is the dark stuff.

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [between virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum and real electrons, etc.], as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

I wonder what is going on with the mass-generating Higgs field and also what the polarization of the virtual charges in the vacuum physically looks like (how far it extends for each species of virtual particle, etc) around a real (long-lived) particle? The usual talk of force strengths as a function of collision energy is misleading because it is not clearly explained to people that this means forces becomes stronger at closer range.

Ie, the electromagnetic force does not obey Coulomb’s law: at very close-in distances it rises faster than the inverse-square of distance because apparent charge rises. At 92 GeV electric charge is 7% stronger as measured in lepton scattering experiments.

Clearly the charge polarization is strongly linked to the Higgs mechanism because both the electric charge and the particle mass are renormalized quantities: the bare charge and mass are larger than the observed values at a long distance. Because Yang-Mills exchange theories are behind the standard model which is well verified empirically, you therefore get a picture whereby exchange radiation is being shielded by the vacuum to create the charge variation. There is no reason why the exchange radiation energy should not be conserved like other forms of energy, so the absorption of this energy in the shielding region of vacuum charge polarization is used somehow. In that region you get short range nuclear forces, including massive weak gauge bosons, so it is perfectly feasible that the attenuation of the core electric charge gauge bosons near a particle creates strong forces. This allows numerical predictions, because you can calculate precisely how much electrmagnetic field energy is being lost due to shielding, and this will be how much nuclear force energy will be increased. Data are already available on this, allowing checks to be made.

At low energies, the experimentally determined strong nuclear force strength is alpha = 1 (which is about 137 times the Coulomb law), but it falls to alpha = 0.35 at a collision energy of 2 GeV, 0.2 at 7 GeV, and 0.1 at 200 GeV or so. The electric force strength increases from alpha = 1/137 at low energies to 1/128 at 92 GeV. So as one force falls, another rises, suggesting that the energy carried by all gauge bosons is conserved at any given distance from a particle (or collision energy, since higher energies imply closer distances).

A switch in general thinking towards graphical illustrations of polarization and force effects as a function of distance would help to make the dynamics clearer for the mass causing Higgs mechanism. Clearly there is a close association between the massive W and Z gauge bosons and the mass carrying “Higgs” boson. Just as old CGS units created problems for physicists in some areas, so the convention of thinking of forces as a function of energy rather than distance makes it needlessly abstract. A pictorial way of thinking may help progress, but will require much work because it is hard to work out the exact distance of close approach in high energy collisions because of the complexity of inelastic scatter reactions.

sir popper showed heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a scattering relation for charge creation/annihilation in the vacuum.

Take the energy-time form of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and put in the energy of an electron-positron pair and you find it can exist for ~10^-21 second; the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre.

Since the separation of charges is ~10^-12 m, the vacuum contains ~ 10^36 charges per cubic metre. each charge is .511 MeV hence ~ 10^36 MeV per cubic metre is the vacuum energy density.

The argument in previous comment is based on minimum energy of vacuum (ground state). Shorter ranges of particles in Popper's scattering theory would correspond to higher vaccuum energy states as occur in strong electromagnetic fields near charged matter (muons etc have shorter ranges by Heisenberg's formula, hence higher vacuum energy density).

If muons are 205 times the mass of electrons (or whatever), then they are only 1/205 or 0.5% as abundant as electrons and positrons in the vacuum, assuming that they are equally to be formed. The shorter lifetime does allow us to make estimates. I calculated that for electron-positron pairs the mean life is ~10^-21 second; so the maximum possible range is therefore this time multiplied by c, or 10^-12 metre. For muons, this time and range would be reduced by a factor of 205 or whatever. For quarks, the reduction factor is still greater.

The argument above for the vacuum energy density of 10^42 eV/m^3 is based on minimum energy of vacuum (ground state). Shorter ranges of particles in Popper's scattering theory would correspond to higher vaccuum energy states as occur in strong electromagnetic fields near charged matter (muons etc. have shorter ranges by Heisenberg's formula, hence higher vacuum energy density).

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: p.x ~ h. Hence since E~pc and x~ct, we have p.x ~ [E/c].[ct] ~ Et ~h. (E is uncertainty in energy, t in time, x in range, p in momentum.)

Dark matter is some subset of the total vacuum annihilation-creation loops, probably weak force gauge bosons, since electroweak symmetry breaking is down to massive particles - Higgs bosons or whatever - which at low energy give the 91 GeV Z_o mass but not the photon. Lepton and hadron masses are explained well by a polarized vacuum model using 91 GeV as the bare charge mass.

The weak force symmetry (which exists for energies above 250 GeV) breaks spontaneously at 250 GeV, because of the Higgs mechanism. Below 250 GeV, there is no weak force symmetry because particles have masses since they are mired in the Higgs field which causes inertia.

The vacuum "Higgs field" is supposed to include a massive yet chargeless "Higgs boson" which causes all mass in the universe, the mass of all leptons, quarks, etc. Let's assume that the particle has already in a sense been discovered and is either the Zo itself or is closely associated to or paired with the Zo. This may in part or in whole reverse the mainstream picture, which claims that the mass of the Zo (and all other particles) is given by external Higgs bosons.

We can make additional predictions using the Z boson of electroweak theory, which is unique because it has rest mass despite being an uncharged fundamental particle! You can easily see how charged particles acquire mass (by attracting a cloud of vacuum charges, which mire them, creating inertia and a response to the spacetime fabric background field which is gravity). But how does a non-composite neutral particle, the Z, acquire mass? This is essentially the question of electroweak symmetry breaking at low energy. The Z is related to the photon, but is different in that it has rest mass and therefore has a limited range, at least below electroweak symmetry breaking energy.

Z mass model: a vacuum particle with the mass of the electroweak neutral gauge boson (Z) semi-empirically predicts all the masses in the Standard Model. You use data for a few particles to formulate the model, but then it predicts everything else, including making many extra checkable predictions! Here's how. If the particle is inside the polarization range of the electron, there is still its own polarization shell separating it from the real electron core. Because of the shielding of its own shell of vacuum polarization and from the spin of the electron core, the mass it gives the core is equal to M(z)/(2.Pi x 137) = M(z).alpha/(2.Pi) ~ 105.7 MeV. Hence the muon!

Next, consider the lower energy state where the mass is outside the polarization zone (at a large distance). In that case, the coupling between the central core charge and the mass at B is reduced by the additional distance (which empirically is a factor of ~1.5 reduction) and also the 137 or 1/alpha polarization attenuation factor. HenceM(z).(alpha)^2 /(1.5 x 2.Pi) ~ 0.51 MeV. Hence the electron!

Generalizing, for n real charge cores (such as a bare lepton or 2-3 bare quarks), and N masses of Z boson mass at a position within the polarization zone, nearby to the core (a high energy, high mass state), the formula for predicting the observable mass of the elementary particle is: M(e).n(N+1)/(2.alpha)= M(z).n(N+1)(alpha)/(6.Pi).

It is easy to calculate from the Popper-based methodology above.

Please delete if this is too silly or annoyingly long. (I'm banned from arxiv.)

Kind regards,
Nigel

8/22/2006 08:39:19 PM

 
At 3:31 PM, Blogger nige said...

From: "NC" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk; "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms

Dear Guy,

Radio waves don't behave as photons: in a photon the peak electric field and
peak magnetic field remain constant, while in a radio wave they diminish
inversely with distance from transmitter.

The whole issue of the relationship between wave amplitude and energy was
swept under the carpet by Max Born in 1927. Born pointed out that
mathematically the energy density is proportional to the square of the wave
amplitude. This led to the Copenhagen Interpretation sh*t, although it is
mathematically correct it is not a physical statement, which should give
some details and mechanism for the wave. Ie, as David says, what is helping
the wave go? What is moving and how in the spacetime fabric to allow wave
propagation? What is waving, physically? It was very easy for Born to say
square the wave amplitude to get energy density, and thus probability of
finding the electron etc. This allowed calculations to be made with
Schroedinger's equation and Dirac's equation.

What is tougher is working out the details. I know you can claim (somewhat
in the manner of Fourier's theorem that any waveform can be represented as
the composite of lots of individual smaller sine waves) that a big radio
wave is the superposition of many photons and it is just a statistical
effect that the peak electric field and magnetic field in a "radio wave" is
falling, because the individual photons are diverging.

My problem with this answer is that it is SPECULATION. Ultimately, the
question would be resolved if you could measure the radio emission from a
SINGLE accelerated electron. If that "radio wave" behaves as a photon
(constant peak electric field amplitude), then we know you are right.
However, if the radio emission from a single accelerated electron falls with
distance like the net radio emission from accelerated electrons in an
aerial, then you are wrong.

We know that IN AN ATOMIC TRANSITION, the electron doesn't seem to
accelerate as such; the photons are associated with quantum leaps. Around
1916 there was a notorious letter from Rutherford to Bohr. Rutherford told
Bohr his quantum theory was rubbish because when the electron was jumping
between energy levels, say falling back to a ground state (closer to the
positive nucleus!!!) "how would the electron know when to stop?"

Bohr went a bit insane as a result, and started philosophising about Machian
rules that nobody must ever ask any question in physics unless the question
has a NUMERICAL answer (no mechanisms allowed, no questions about
mechanisms, just calculations; Feynman's "shut up and calculate" approach).

The answer is that electrons are always spinning, hence have acceleration a
= v^2 / r where r is radius and v is spin speed, and this continuous
acceleration gives rise to the continuous emission of energy which is
exchanged between all charges in the universe, causing inertia, momentum,
contraction effects in relativity, forces, etc. Bohr was so f**king stupid
he and many others claimed that if charges radiate, they'd fall into the
nucleus. He didn't understand that you can go on giving off energy
endlessly if you are receiving it endlessly, EQUILIBRIUM. This is implied
by modern Yang-Mills quantum field theory as shown by Feynman disgrams for
electromagnetic and other fundamental force interactions; charges and masses
EXCHANGE energy for the force to result! Since forces like gravity are
acting all the time, energy is being EXCHANGED all the time. By analogy,
Prevost in 1792 came up with the correct concept that at constant
temperature, all objects are radiating as much energy as they receive.
Prevost was ridiculed by morons who couldn't see beyond the present (false)
paradigm of 1792 which stated that at constant temperature there couldn't
possibly be any energy emission or everything would soon freeze. Bias is so
bad, people refuse to think.

Nothing I say will ever be taken seriously. The use of capital letters and
bad language above doesn't help.

Kind regards,
nigel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Grantham" epola@tiscali.co.uk
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com;
imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; jvospost2@yahoo.com;
nigelbryancook@hotmail.com; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au;
graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com;
george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms


> Dear David
>
> A single ray (a single photon) cannot "diverge", it merely changes its
> path slightly in a random manner. A beam of rays however always diverges
> because the random changes to the paths of each of its constituent photons
> are all different. The discussion has been about the *extent* of this
> divergence. I don't follow your understanding since light beams are
> divergent, and more so in a liquid than a solid.
>
> Large crystals of a transparent salt are polycrystalline but you would not
> find a difference from sample to sample.
>
> Best regards, Guy

 
At 6:34 AM, Blogger nige said...

Explaining simple physics to a stringer:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/08/2006-atlantic-hurricane-season.html


Dear Lubos,

All you need to predict hurricanes is a prediction of ocean temperature.

Empirically the number of hurricanes per 100 million square miles of ocean or whatever is proportional to something like (T - 26)^2.3 where T is the surface temperature (C) of the ocean where the hurricanes are formed.

A small rise in temperature above 26 C causes a disproportinate increase in the number of hurricanes. This occurs partly because hurricanes are driven by the release of latent heat when evaporated moisture condenses at high altitude, which increases the energy available of the hurricane helping the swirling motion of high altitude air.

I can't recall the exact formula with the constant of proportionality, but I have it filed away somewhere with a plot off the data compared to the empirican curve.

To get a hurricane you just have to get evaporation from a large area of warm ocean. The warmer the ocean, the greater the convection of warm air and moisture. As water vapour condenses into drops in cold air below 0 C at high altitude, latent heat of vaporization is released, providing heat which drives further convection.

The whole thing spins owing to the Coriolis force, which deflects the motion of the rising air due to the effects of the earth's rotation. This is insignificant for small amounts of matter (water going down a plug hole in a sink has very nearly 50% chance of spinning either clockwise or anticlockwise, because random factors are so much bigger than the Coriolis effect on small scales), but it is substantial for massive amounts of rising moisture from a hot ocean, and this generates the hurricane dynamics.

See http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

I don't think the usual form of the Coriolis equation is most helpful.

The centripetal acceleration of hurricane air is given simply by Newton's law a = (v^2)/r where r is the radius of air from the eye of the hurricane and v is its speed of orbit of the hurricane's eye.

The earth's centripetal acceleration due to spin, for places near equator where most hurricanes originate (hurricanes NEVER form at the earth's poles, because the Coriolis force is too small there) is simply:

a = (v^2)/R where R is earth's radius, and v = 2Pi.R/T where T is time of 1 day (1 rotation of earth), hence

a = 4(Pi^2)R/(T^2) = 4R(Pi/T)^2

(notice that this is directly proportional to earth's radius of spin at location of interest, so you can see why there are never hurricanes at the equator, because effective earth radius near poles R = zero, so there's no Coriolis effect at poles)

a = 4R(Pi/T)^2 = 0.034 ms^-2

which can be compared to the acceleration of gravity 9.8 ms^-2.

Because in a hurricane near the equator, the centripetal acceleration is balanced by, and thus is equal to the Coriolsis acceleration, we get

a = (v^2)/r = 4(Pi/T)^2 = 0.034 ms^-2

The speed of air in a hurricane near the equator should therefore be

v = 0.18r^0.5 metres/second, where r is distance from eye of hurricane in metres.

So at 100 km from eye of hurricane, the wind speed blowing around the hurricane should be 57 metres/second or 127 miles/hour, which is correct.

So you see, the physics of the hurricane are very simple, even string theorists should be able to grasp how to predict things with it!

Kind regards,
anon.

anon | 08.24.06 - 9:30 am | #

 
At 1:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pure mathematicians (which include anyone who is a ‘string theorist’ because string theory has no contact with physical facts, being instead a load of non-empirical abject speculations about extra dimensions, the Planck scale, and a way called supersymmetry whereby forces can be quantitatively unified by the addition of an unobserved superpartner with different spin for each real particle) have a different approach to the physically intuitive, mechanism seeking scientist. Part of the problem with special relativity (which is mathematically sound so far as it goes – which is not far since it can’t deal correctly with accelerated motion or motion in anything but a straight line at uniform velocity – hence the reason why Einstein had to work on general relativity which replaces the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light [contrary to a postulate of ‘special relativity’, the velocity of light VARIES when light is deflected by gravity, because velocity is a VECTOR depending on not only speed but also DIRECTION!!!!!] ) is that it LACKS PHYSICAL MECHANISM, DYNAMICS. It, together with Max Born’s purely mathematical (non-mechanism, non-dynamical) ‘interpretation’ of the wave function of Schrodinger’s/Dirac’s equations (Born’s ‘interpretation’ is simply that you square the wave function and the result is proportional to the relative probability of finding the particle or energy per unit volume; the problem is that in a real wave – like a water wave – the energy indeed is proportional to the square of the amplitude (wave height) but there are DYNAMICS involved, whereas Born – by ignoring the tricky question of what the real facts behind quantum waves are – pathed the way for Bohr and Heisenberg’s subjectivism which pervades and perverts ‘understanding’ in physics to this day. (Edward Witten has worked out useful applied mathematics/physics as well as pure mathematics/string, so I’m not claiming that all string theorists are 100% evil, but they sometimes are less than truthful.) The result of ‘special relativity’ (despite it being superseded by general relativity for general motions due to failures such as the twins paradox) has tended to drive out intuitive, mechanism-seeking physicists, and replace them by mathematicians who don’t need/want the cause and effect dynamics.

It is therefore nice to be able to quote a recent tale of a PURE MATHEMATICIAN doing something useful, providing some evidence for thinking about the geometry of the universe simply as being a giant sphere with radius equal to 15,000 million light years or whatever:

http://www.newyorker.com/

MANIFOLD DESTINY
A legendary problem and the battle over who solved it.
by SYLVIA NASAR AND DAVID GRUBER

Issue of 2006-08-28
Posted 2006-08-21

… Over a period of eight months, beginning in November, 2002, Perelman posted a proof of the Poincaré on the Internet in three installments. Like a sonnet or an aria, a mathematical proof has a distinct form and set of conventions. It begins with axioms, or accepted truths, and employs a series of logical statements to arrive at a conclusion. If the logic is deemed to be watertight, then the result is a theorem. Unlike proof in law or science, which is based on evidence and therefore subject to qualification and revision, a proof of a theorem is definitive. Judgments about the accuracy of a proof are mediated by peer-reviewed journals; to insure fairness, reviewers are supposed to be carefully chosen by journal editors, and the identity of a scholar whose pa-per is under consideration is kept secret. Publication implies that a proof is complete, correct, and original.

By these standards, Perelman’s proof was unorthodox. It was astonishingly brief for such an ambitious piece of work; logic sequences that could have been elaborated over many pages were often severely compressed. Moreover, the proof made no direct mention of the Poincaré and included many elegant results that were irrelevant to the central argument. But, four years later, at least two teams of experts had vetted the proof and had found no significant gaps or errors in it. A consensus was emerging in the math community: Perelman had solved the Poincaré. Even so, the proof’s complexity—and Perelman’s use of shorthand in making some of his most important claims—made it vulnerable to challenge. Few mathematicians had the expertise necessary to evaluate and defend it.

After giving a series of lectures on the proof in the United States in 2003, Perelman returned to St. Petersburg. Since then, although he had continued to answer queries about it by e-mail, he had had minimal contact with colleagues and, for reasons no one understood, had not tried to publish it. Still, there was little doubt that Perelman, who turned forty on June 13th, deserved a Fields Medal. As Ball planned the I.M.U.’s 2006 congress, he began to conceive of it as a historic event. More than three thousand mathematicians would be attending, and King Juan Carlos of Spain had agreed to preside over the awards ceremony. The I.M.U.’s newsletter predicted that the congress would be remembered as “the occasion when this conjecture became a theorem.” Ball, determined to make sure that Perelman would be there, decided to go to St. Petersburg.

Ball wanted to keep his visit a secret—the names of Fields Medal recipients are announced officially at the awards ceremony—and the conference center where he met with Perelman was deserted. For ten hours over two days, he tried to persuade Perelman to agree to accept the prize. Perelman, a slender, balding man with a curly beard, bushy eyebrows, and blue-green eyes, listened politely. He had not spoken English for three years, but he fluently parried Ball’s entreaties, at one point taking Ball on a long walk—one of Perelman’s favorite activities. As he summed up the conversation two weeks later: “He proposed to me three alternatives: accept and come; accept and don’t come, and we will send you the medal later; third, I don’t accept the prize. From the very beginning, I told him I have chosen the third one.” The Fields Medal held no interest for him, Perelman explained. “It was completely irrelevant for me,” he said. “Everybody understood that if the proof is correct then no other recognition is needed.”

Proofs of the Poincaré have been announced nearly every year since the conjecture was formulated, by Henri Poincaré, more than a hundred years ago. Poincaré was a cousin of Raymond Poincaré, the President of France during the First World War, and one of the most creative mathematicians of the nineteenth century. Slight, myopic, and notoriously absent-minded, he conceived his famous problem in 1904, eight years before he died, and tucked it as an offhand question into the end of a sixty-five-page paper.

Poincaré didn’t make much progress on proving the conjecture. “Cette question nous entraînerait trop loin” (“This question would take us too far”), he wrote. He was a founder of topology, also known as “rubber-sheet geometry,” for its focus on the intrinsic properties of spaces. From a topologist’s perspective, there is no difference between a bagel and a coffee cup with a handle. Each has a single hole and can be manipulated to resemble the other without being torn or cut. Poincaré used the term “manifold” to describe such an abstract topological space. The simplest possible two-dimensional manifold is the surface of a soccer ball, which, to a topologist, is a sphere—even when it is stomped on, stretched, or crumpled. The proof that an object is a so-called two-sphere, since it can take on any number of shapes, is that it is “simply connected,” meaning that no holes puncture it. Unlike a soccer ball, a bagel is not a true sphere. If you tie a slipknot around a soccer ball, you can easily pull the slipknot closed by sliding it along the surface of the ball. But if you tie a slipknot around a bagel through the hole in its middle you cannot pull the slipknot closed without tearing the bagel.
Two-dimensional manifolds were well understood by the mid-nineteenth century. But it remained unclear whether what was true for two dimensions was also true for three. Poincaré proposed that all closed, simply connected, three-dimensional manifolds—those which lack holes and are of finite extent—were spheres. The conjecture was potentially important for scientists studying the largest known three-dimensional manifold: the universe.

 
At 2:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mathematicians who don't have physical intuition for practical physics and can't even design a castle turret effectively:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=450

A Castle For Mathematicians


The American Institute of Mathematics was founded in 1994...

Last month, the City Counci of Morgan Hill approved plans for construction next to a golf course of a huge castle that will provide a permanent home ... which is rumored to cost over $50 million, and planned to be ready for occupancy in 2009. ...



anon Says:

August 25th, 2006 at 5:21 am

Very nice video, except that the turrets are square shaped, whereas cylindrical designs are much better at resisting bombardment since impact impulses get arched over a much larger area in an attack on a cylinder than on a flat wall, which reduces damage.

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger nige said...

There have been repeated problems recently with accessing this blogger site for updates. I have earlier today placed a post on http://nige.wordpress.com/ which I have now (25 August 06) managed to add into this post, together with further material.

All of the outstanding problems have been solved within the last few hours, so worries over details have now largely been laid to rest.

I'm now in a position to write a paper based on the clarifications on this blog (http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/) to mathematical calculations and analyses at the older sites such as http://feynman137.tripod.com/

Trying to generate mainstream interest in this is impossible, because of overhyped mainstream string theory etc which as Catt makes a travesty of physics, turning it into a branch of religion.

Suppose Ivor Catt discovered evidence that Her Majesty the Queen (better use her as example, not Einstein or Stephen Hawking, or we will be accused of underhandedly sneering at someone who is dead or who is in a wheelchair) is "high and mighty, and lacking relevant experience of the problems of her subjects, and thus not helping".

The newspapers won't print this about Queen/Hawking, largely because it isn't news.

Now the analogy gets really interesting. Suppose the editor rejects the "story" on the basis that it is not news and is just the "opinion" of someone bitter.

The writer then compiles factual evidence to prove that the Queen really doesn't have close contact with the sort of problems the common man has. The editor still rejects the story, but now says, "OK, it is factual, but it just is not interesting news. Everyone knows this, and nobody wants to be told the obvious. Can't you be positive about her, or find something NEW to report?"

It is pretty obvious that the reporter and the editor don't share the same outlook, there is no empathy. The editor sometimes rejects stories which become major news, because she is not perfect, but her judgement is generally good. If she rejects a story it is because it is not convincing enough or interesting enough or vitally important enough to publish in its present form.

The writer sees things from a very different perspective, and it is hard for the editor to give definite reasons for rejection if the story is borderline.

Some attacks on the Queen do appear in the papers, but they are sneaky and not direct. For example, a female writer (Townsend) wrote a comedy-type novel about the Queen living in an ordinary neighborhood, which was serialized in newspapers, and a book called "Has Hawking Erred?" soon appeared after "A Brief History of Time" became a bestseller.

But these criticisms are always half-hearted at best. They are not vigorous, because nobody wants them to be. If they are, then they generally get suppressed before publication, or if published then most people have the "good taste" not to buy them.

What we have to face is the fact that facts themselves cannot be allowed as a serious repudiation of mainstream prejudices. The reason is obvious: it would upset more people than it would please.

To quote again the comment ksh95 made on Woit's blog on August 21st, 2006 at 6:09 pm:

"The standard is and always has been clear: in the absense of experimental evidence the group that can accumulate the most power becomes correct."

Once they have become correct without having any evidence, it becomes impossible to depose them using evidence, because NOBODY at all wants to listen to a non-mainstream theory which delivers hard scientific evidence instead of stringy hogwash.

The string theorists have "queered the pitch" with the public over physics.

However I'm optimistic today due to the massive recent increase in clear thinking on the overall problem, and much of this has been due to the influence of Woit who has clearly discriminated between those parts of modern physics which are empirically defensible and those parts which have no hope of becoming empirically defensible.

I'm basing my optimism on the wild hope that I can get the entire gravity and QFT unification theory with predictions clarified and compressed into a single poster which can be published on an A4 size page of a magazine.

The basic principles and calculations are that straightforward. I'd also like to write a longer, readable paper (book-length) setting out the arguments in context of the history of general relativity and the Standard Model, etc. The recent advances in lucidity today make me more optimistic that I can rapidly produce such results.

Where should I publish? There are several options on the internet and in the scientific world. The arXiv moderators in 2002 told me to set up my own site to publish my work, and I may take up that suggestion. (So far I've only used free or ad funded internet sites, so they won't automatically be deleted and disappear forever exactly 30 days after my bank account is frozen after I die falling under a bus or whatever the fate has in store. Walter Babin hosts several of my papers kindly on his site - they are mostly obsolete now due to recent progress - but again that is less permanent than you would want. I was slightly annoyed about arXiv deleting my paper within a few seconds of it being uploaded in 2002, but today I feel far more angry about those people.)

 
At 2:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After his vicious attacks on Richard P. Feynman being "senile" in 1988 when he worked out the cause of the space shuttle disaster (see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=446#comment-14825 where Motl said: "Concerning Feynman’s misunderstanding of string theory, he was just too old ... he was saying such a nonsense ... he was already too old and a bit senile and slow..."), Professor Lubos Motl is now allegedly photographed dressed as the new fuhrer of string theory:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/08/insiders-and-outsiders-sociological.html

Fast comments:

I was just browsing the internet and came across the vile Nazi propaganda photo:

http://thumbsnap.com/v/WklzYHrh.jpg

Glad you don't use fascist methods, Lubos.

Kind regards,
string eater
string eater | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 4:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

String eater,
I think you should in no way let the fact that:
1) The photo bears a remarkable resemblance to Lubos, or
2) The small detail that Lubos is a self confessed Right Wing Czech, or
3) That Lubos has already enlisted 1000 crack SS (superstring) troops

Let you in any way be mislead into thinking that Lubos is a megalomaniac with dreams of world domination with absolute totalitarian authority to pull all The Strings
out of the hat!

Remember "all the world is a stage"
Lubos just wants to be puppet-master
Goldenship2 | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 5:04 pm | #

 
At 3:58 AM, Blogger nige said...

Copy of comments:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=451#comment-15181

Stefan Says:

August 28th, 2006 at 4:13 am

“My prejudice is that, lacking experimental guidance, the thing to do is to try and better understand the mathematical structures underlying the standard model.”

I agree with you 100%!! So, may you kindly do the undergrads a favour and tell us what those specific topics are.

Stefan

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=451#comment-15183

nigel Says:

August 28th, 2006 at 6:06 am

Stefan, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/repthy.html for general background course on relevant maths and see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135 for some specific physical ideas explaining the Standard Model tentatively using such ideas. At top of page 51, the Standard Model particles are obtained with electroweak symmetry properties. This should be impressive if you are interested in the links between Standard Model and advanced mathematics without resorting to extra dimensions.

The taste in ideas for extreme abstraction in particle physics is set by symmetry principles more recently, and laws of nature further in the past. This is not the same approach that you use if you are dealing with relatively simple phenomena where you might try to guess a full mechanism and write down the relevant basic equations straight off, and then solve those equations.

If you take nuclear physics, where you have the shell model and the liquid drop model of the nucleus, you can use visual analogies to help formulate a model that makes checkable predictions, which are semi-classical. But with particle physics, it looks more promising to search for symmetry principles and other abstract laws than to guess a sem-classical model.

I mean, suppose you were crazy and guessed that the particle is like a piece of string, and then you found that to get it to work just as an ad hoc model you needed to make make it extra dimensional string, and then you still failed to predict anything with it for 20 years? How embarrassing!

 
At 9:07 AM, Blogger nige said...

I can't republish this blog without errors arising, so here is the latest update (which can be saved to the post when viewed separately, but cannot yet be published on the post as seen from the main page of the blog):

(The version of the update below obviously misses out any formatting, bold, italics, etc.)

Further update (29 Aug 06) as a result of recent emailed discussions with Ian Montgomery Guy Grantham and David Tombe:

Gauge bosons are being exchanged between each charge and all other charges all the time. This produces fundamental forces. Accelerate one charge, and the effect is a disturbance in the equilibrium. The effect of this disturbance goes off at the normal speed of the gauge bosons, c. What is happening in the case of the electron is that it is emitting continuous Heaviside slab type electromagnetic radiation (no oscillation, zero frequency), just as it emits heat photons (oscillating radiation) when above absolute zero. We detect the oscillating radiation because it causes other charges to resonate. We detect the non-oscillating radiation (Yang-Mills exchange radiation) because it causes forces and steady state force fields.

Waves flowing in a particulate medium by virtue of the gross disturbance of a large number of particles, such as sound waves in air or water molecules in water waves, dissipate energy because the particles strike one another at random, transferring momentum. This is why radio waves (which lose energy as they spread out) in Maxwell's (flawed world view) may be carried by the 'ether' or to be precise the quantum foam vacuum, but photons aren't carried by particles or they'd lose energy as they propagate. Photons are carried by the normal continuous radiation of gauge bosons (Yang Mills exchange radiation) which causes gravity, electromagnetim force fields, etc.

Photons emitted by atomic electrons don't spread like radio waves; the energy of a gamma ray doesn't fall off as the inverse of distance like a radio wave. A radio wave is different from a photon in that the energy of the wave changes with distance. Guy has claimed in response to me that this is not a contradiction, and that a radio wave is simply a compose of a vast number of photons, all in phase like coherent light from a laser. This is a possibility: for instance Huygens showed how a large number of fronts of small wavelets when superimposed can produce one large wave front. However, if so, then this is progress beyond the Maxwellian visual concept (as depicted vaguely as two sine waves orthagonal to one another in his Treatise) whereby a radio wave has a really massive transverse spatial extent, on the order of the wavelength or half the wavelength.

Maxwell missed the Heaviside-Poynting vector and Heaviside's proof that a slab of energy can travel without Maxwell's mechanism if there is equal energy flowing in opposite directions at the same time. This is why if I connect at 10 km unterminated long pair of wires to 377 volts DC power supply, I get something on the order of 1 amp flowing in the wires with the front going at light speed for the insulator between and around the wires, for the time of x/c = 33 microseconds that it takes the energy to react the open circuit at the far end.

(1) Photons emitted by single charges

Type of physics: Planck's quantum theory
Electromagnetic E and B fields in wave: constant regardless of distance travelled
Mechanism: Energy transfer is facilitated by a simple disturbance in the normal equilibrium exchange of energy flows between charges (in opposite directions, ie, through one another, continuously)

(2) Radio waves emitted by group behaviour of many charges

Type of physics: Maxwell's classical theory (radio waves)
Electromagnetic E and B fields in wave: fall off inversely with propagation distance and hence time (energy density falls off with inverse square of distance and energy density is proportional to square of field amplitude)
Mechanism: EITHER: (a) the radio wave is the superimposed composite of many photon type waves emitted by individual electrons in the transmitter aerial and the fall in the peak electric field strength of the wave with increasing distance is due statistically to the geometric divergence of these photons as they diverge (each individual photon remaining the same); OR (b) some kind of Maxwellian wave whereby displacement current of virtual charges in vacuum causes a curling magnetic field, which causes induction of vacuum virtual charge displacement current, which again causes a magnetic field and so on in a rolling wave. The equations are Faraday's induction law (Maxwell's equation for curl of an electric field being proportional to the rate of change of magnetic field) and Ampere's law with the current given by Maxwell's displacement current law (so that the curl of a magnetic field is proportional to displacement current which in turn is proportional to the rate of change of electric field strength). The waves dissipate because particles in the vacuum carrying the wave collide or scatter which dissipates momentum and energy as the wave propagates (for waves which are not carried by particles in the vacuum - for example photons which rely on Yang-Mills exchange radiation which is Heaviside non-oscillating contrapuntal flow see (1) above - there is no mechanism for dissipation because they are not carried by vacuum particles; since there is no mechanism for photons to dissipate, they can't dissipate).

The material above brought a request from Ian Montgomery for definition of a gauge boson, how a photon resulting from a disturbance in gauge boson exchange radiation can have any given frequency, what evidence there is for each of the two mechanisms listed above for electromagnetic radiation, and whether there is an overlap at any frequencies between the two mechanisms (whereby a wave can be caused by either mechanism; obviously there are as many variations as there are forms of radiation for instance you have different types of gauge boson and neutrinos, etc., so there are variants in nature), and what the vacuum contains. Response:

Definition of gauge boson: 'Gauge boson: Any of the particles that carry the four fundamental forces of nature (see forces, fundamental). Gauge bosons are elementary particles that cannot be subdivided, and include the photon, the graviton, the gluons, and the W+, W-, and Z particles.'

The key thing is that in any propagating wave (whether longitudinal like sound or sonar, or transverse such as a water surface wave) you need equal and opposite flows. In a longitudinal wave such as sound, the two pressures act in opposite directions along the line of propagation of the wave, whereas in a transverse wave, the pressures act in opposite directions along a line which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. This is due to Newton's 3rd law, since pressure times area is force, and forces are balanced.

In a sound wave you have an outward force associated with the overpressure phase and an inward force associated with the below-ambient pressure phase.

If you just release some air at pressure, no sound wave is generated unless somehow an oscillation is produced (such as by a whistle or similar mechanism). See illustrations at: http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/outward-pressure-times-area-is-outward.html

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC GAUGE BOSON CAN PROPAGATE WITHOUT OSCILLATION

As you charge up a pair of separated metal spheres with the same type of charge (say electrons), the region between them becomes a negative electric field. What is actually occurring is that the flow of gauge boson energy intensifies in each direction. It is impossible to have a non-oscillating electromagnetic gauge boson energy flow in one direction only, or it will have infinite self inductance problems due to the effect of the magnetic field on the virtual charges in the vacuum!

However, if you have two flows of gauge boson energy, with one passing through the other (in opposite directions), as actually occurs continuously in Yang-Mills exchange, the magnetic fields of the Heaviside-Poynting energy currents exactly cancel out, so there is no magnetic problem and propagation becomes possible without any oscillation. All you get left with is the observed electric field in space, which is exactly what is observed. That field lacks the energy density required to polarize virtual charges in space, because we know from QED that the success of renormalized charge means that the vacuum is not polarized by weak electric fields (there is a definite cutoff; electric fields can only polarize the vacuum charges if the energy density of the electric fields is fairly intense, above the threshold necessary to create fresh electron-positron pairs in the vacuum).

"If the photon mechanism below is gauge boson ballistic disturbance, how can it have a frequency?" - Ian.

The "frequency" of a disturbance is the number one divided by the duration of the disturbance in seconds.

I've already explained why a propagating disturbance has momentum giving rise to forces which are equal and opposite (along the direction of propagation in longitudinal waves; perpendicular to the direction of propagation in the case of transverse waves) due to Newton's 3rd law. Further, the pulse shape does not have to necessarily conform to any particular prejudice (sine waves).

Nobody has ever measured the electric field waveform for light, since it is far too short and beyond experimental measurement even where the intensity is high for example using a coherent laser burst. For gamma rays, the click on the geiger counter or scintillation counter is not even directly caused by the gamma ray, but is an indirect result caused by ionization of gas or the disturbance to the sodium iodide crystal structure in the scintillation counter. There is no way anyone can measure any waveform, and there is no meaning to the word wavefore in this context. Hence the association of the word "frequency" to electromagnetic radiation is entirely mathematical for above S-band radio (microwaves); you can't see any evidence of structure.

The wave mechanisms are different for classical and quantum radiation. However, most of Maxwell's theory is gibberish and he doesn't have a clear illustration of what is going on. In the capactor where Maxwell gets his key equation for light, the 'displacement current' equation, what is normally attributed to displacement current is actually set up in the first place by the flow of radiation, see my piece about this at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html and links on that page. So the dynamics of Maxwell's theory are wrong. The 'displacement current' of virtual charge is set up as a result of the real charge being induced to charge up in the capacitor plates by way of electromagnetic radiation exchange.

Maxwell claims that charge accumulates in the plates of the charging capacitor via displacement current in the vacuum due to charge polarization. But this is false since if the charge in the vacuum could be polarized by weak electric fields, it would oppose and cancel out all real charges (quantum field theory uses renormalization which shows that there is a minimum energy density of the electric field which produces free charge that can be polarized). What really occurs in place of Maxwell's 'displacement current' is explained here (and on its links): http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

Electromagnetic radiation induces real charge to accumulate in each plate, which in turn might create the displacement of some virtual charges in the vacuum between the plates.

There is factual evidence that the capacitor charges up due to radiation, not virtual displacement current flowing between capacitor plates. Maxwell's mechanism is false because it neglects the dynamics. When you set down the facts you can see that there energy flowing in one plate transmitts electromagnetic radiation to the other plate via charge acceleration in the plates, and the other plate sends out an exactly inverted waveform. Both signals exactly cancel as seen from large distances, so exactly zero energy can be radiated away from the capacitor by radiation, but 100% is used to induce motion of charge in the other plate. This is the mechanism for the Heaviside signal in a capacitor and transmission line.

Maxwell's theory is like the legendiary frauds of science which come from getting cause and effect mixed up. For example, in the book 'How to Lie with Statistics' the example is given that in Holland (I think) researchers found that the houses with the most children had the most stork's nests on the roofs. It is very easy to confuse cause and effect where you don't have a firm grasp on what the full dynamics really are. In this case, the reason for the number of stork's nests were that on the average people with more children had bigger, older houses to accommodate them, and storks nests are more likely to be found on the roofs of bigger, older houses. There is no need for more fanciful theories.

Maxwell's idea that there is virtual charges in the vacuum becoming polarised (which is his final mechanism for displacement current) is wrong, because the success of renormalization in QED which predicts the Lamb shift and the magnetic moments of leptons (electron, muon, etc) proves that the vacuum can't be polarized by weak electric fields, only by electric fields strong enough to be capable of creating pairs of free charges which can then become polarized.

So it is likely that Guy must be right and mechanism (2) above (Maxwellian waves) is a complete dud. In that case, all radiation including radio waves is due to mechanism (1), with radio waves diverging and losing energy because they are superpositions of many small quantum waves just like the continuous wavefronts you can produce in a physics lab using a lot of oscillating sources. The wavefronts combine and add by Huygen's construction.

No there is no evidence for two separate mechanisms once you dismiss Maxwell, and this adds conviction to the idea that all radiation is due to mechanism (1) above. However, David claims to have a version of Maxwell's theory which works. The key thing is whether David's version of the Maxwell theory gets around the polarization problem. QED shows that if the virtual charges in the vacuum were polarizable by any electric field, every charge would cause enough vacuum polarization around it to cancel out the electric field from the charge completely! Suppose you have an electron, QED suggests that without a vacuum it would have a charge of 137e where e is observed electric charge at a distance more than 10^-10 metre or less. Renormalization in QED reduces the electron charge to e because the virtual charge is polarized between the electron core and some distance (10^-10 m or probably much less, I am desperate to make detailed calculations and actually plot the electric charge and nuclear charge as a function of distance, not a function of collision energy which is the usual plot by physicists). So the real electron core has a charge of ~137e, and around it there is attracted a shell of virtual positrons with opposite charge, then around the positron shell there is a virtual electron shell. (By shell I refer to the mean distance of the virtual positrons freed in the vacuum by the intense close in electric field, and the somewhat greater mean distance of the virtual electrons; obviously this is statistical and you not have every virtual electron at one radius and every virtual positron at another smaller radius from the real electron core.)

The exact shielding is dependent on the amount of polarization, ie unpolarized (randomly distributed) virtual charge around the electron core won't do any shielding, but polarization does some since it creates an electric field vector which points away from the electron, cancelling the electron's inward pointing electric field line (electric field lines are by convention labelled with an arrow pointing from positive toward negative charge).

Because there is no polarization in the vacuum due to weak electric fields (because if there was, it would totally cancel out all real charges!), I don't think radio waves can be due to Maxwell's displacement current mechanism. However, it may be possible to have a radio wave in which the mechanism is the same as the Heaviside slab of energy, with the role of Maxwell's displacement current being replaced by that of radiation: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

‘… the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics … physics has reached the end of the road.’ – Sir Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6.

‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations [between virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum and real electrons, etc.], as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

Therefore I want to preserve the useful Popper mechanism if I can do so, whereas most critics (Catt etc) want to chuck out everything in modern physics just because it is often badly presented (with hype or obfuscation) in its present abstract mathematics form.

The vacuum must contain virtual charges in order that quantum theory work, but there is a constraint that the vacuum is not polarizable unless the energy of the electric field from a charge is strong (ie a charge can only polarize the vacuum very close to it, not at great distances). If a real charge could polarize the vacuum charges without constraint, there would be no observable real electric charges, because the shells of positive and negative vacuum polarization around each real charge would simply expand until they cancelled each real charge out completely.

So the vacuum cannot contain free, polarizable charge. The charges in the vacuum can only be polarized where the electric field is strong enough to first break some kind of constraining forces and therefore free up some charge which si then polarized. So the physics behind renormalization of charge is a two-stage process.

First, the bound vacuum charges have to be freed, which can only occur in strong electric fields quite close to real charges, and then, second, the freed charges are polarized by the electric field which opposes the field and causes the shielding of the bare charge strength (which renormalization requires in quantum field theory).

So some kind of bound electrons and positrons (as contrasted to the mainstream idea of a foam of free annihilating electrons and protons) in the vacuum may explain renormalization.

So there may be some kind of bound electron-positron structure to explain renormalization in quantum field theory.

There is no particle with rest mass between electron and muon. Muon is about 205 times electron mass. Hence, in a randomly colliding sea of electron-positron pairs, using Popper's causal mechanism, a scattering type interpretation, of the energy-time Heisenberg ucertainty principle, there will one muon-antimuon pair for every 205 electron-positron pairs. Hence the vacuum will be 0.5% heavy particles (muons-antimuons) and 99.5% electron-positron pairs. Far beyond muons, you get many other particles, which become rarer and rarer still: pions, quarks, etc.

The Higgs boson has problems: in the simplest model with just one Higgs boson the mass of the Higgs boson should be infinite. More sophisticated Higgs theories are built on SUSY the 10-dimensional supersymmetric unification theory which Witten showed to be a duality of 11 dimensional supergravity. In other words this is string theory, abject speculation with no tests.

My argument is that the origin of all mass is due to gravitationally trapped Z bosons of electroweak theory, which take the place of Higgs bosons. I used this to predict all the masses of all the known particles, and the formula predicts exactly where you can search for certain other short-lived as yet unobserved particles to check it further. See http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-polarization-of-vacuum-and.html for details.

Briefly, to show a mainstream alternative, here is a link to the latest New Scientist article concerning an aetherial replacement to dark matter as far as galactic evidence goes:

http://www.blogger.com/

It cites the following paper which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters:

http://www.blogger.com/

Astrophysics, abstractastro-ph/0607411From: T.G Zlosnik [view email]Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:43:44 GMT (10kb)

Modifying gravity with the Aether: an alternative to Dark MatterAuthors: T.G Zlosnik, P.G Ferreira, G.D Starkman

I think their use of "Aether" will guarantee that PRL will reject it. They should specify something like "Higgs field" instead. Stanley Brown, editor PRL, still rejected my paper, even after I deleted the word ether! For his email see http://www.blogger.com/

They have a rule: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That rule would have prevented Einstein getting relativity published, because the most impressive tests came after publication! If you get your evidence before submitting it, they accuse you of having an ad hoc theory! (If relativity was just an ad hoc explanation, it would have been rejected as speculative.)

I have not studied recent evidence for dark matter in galaxies, only in cosmology. I recall something about the evidence having to do with the rotation speed of galaxies being proportional to the square root of the distance from the middle (or do I mis-remember, I cannot find the lecture notes)? There is an analogy here possibly with hurricane rotation dynamics and the Corolis force: http://www.blogger.com/ and http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/115637347840039579/#587544

Christine Dantas has an interesting discussion here: http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/08/dark-matter-lay-bare.html

********************************
(END OF LATEST UPDATE)

Just one more thing, Guy Grantham apparently doesn't comprehend how something can remain charged without a flow of current.

There are two things to consider, the field in which changes propagate at light speed.

This field is composed of gauge boson radiation.

There is also the electron drift current, which goes far more slowly (about 1 millimetre/second for 1 amp currents in cables).

If you connect a 300,000 km long open circuit (unterminated) cable to a 377 volt battery you get 1 amp flowing for 2 seconds, while the energy goes to the end and reflects back. (The 377 volts

When the energy arrives back it does not stop. It merely cancels the current because there is no electromotive force to push electrons.

The electric current will fall below 1 amp very quickly in the example above, because you will have the line resistance adding directly on to the ~377 ohm approximate impedance once the far end of the signal has gone a distance which puts a lot of ohms between itself and the power source. The 377 ohm impedance of the vacuum is only correct for certain geometries of transmission line, such as when the conductors are parallel plates with a separation distance equal to their width (in general for coax or a pair of wires, the impedance can be several times bigger of smaller than 377 ohms, depending on how well the curling magnetic fields from currents in each conductor cancel those from the other conductor).

Don't confuse energy current (energy flow, the field or gauge boson dynamics) with electric (electron drift) current.

 
At 9:48 AM, Blogger nige said...

From: "Nigel Cook" nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
To: "David Tombe" sirius184@hotmail.com; imontgomery@atlasmeasurement.com.au; epola@tiscali.co.uk; jvospost2@yahoo.com; Monitek@aol.com
Cc: marinsek@aon.at; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au; graham@megaquebec.net; andrewpost@gmail.com; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; tom@tomspace.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Displacement Current on the Femtoscopic Scale

Dear David,

" Imagine an electron and positron in mutual orbit. Project the motion along one axis and you have got simple harmonic motion. You have got the the primary unit of AC displacement current" - David

This is a possibility, and is clearly expressed by you. I'm interested in how there can be a structure to the vacuum which cannot become polarized in weak electric fields, but only in strong electric fields very near charges. This is required to explain how renormalization works physically in the vacuum. Electrons must break down the structure of the vacuum for a short distance around them, freeing charges (electrons and positrons mainly, which can collide and form heavier particles if they are in a very strong electric field very close to the core of the electron). The freed charges then get
polarized, shielding the bare core charge of the vacuum and so accounting for the charge renormalization phenomena behind quantum field theory. Some
kind of orbit of charges in the undisturbed vacuum as you suggest may be more rational here than the epola crystalline structure which Guy and Simony are concerned with. The problem is that I don't see how a vast number of electrons and positrons in the vacuum gve rise to stability.

Crystals are stable because the electrons can't get near the protons and be annihilated. The problem for any electron-positron vacuum is preventing the electrons annihilating with the positrons very quickly to create a super lethal burst of gamma radiation. The most obvious answer is that the electrons are rapidly at random annihilating with positrons to produce gamma
rays, which then quickly undergo pair-production, giving rise to new electron+positron pairs. This is a causal interpretation of current thinking about the 'quantum foam vacuum'. However, it seems to be wrong because the charges would be free, and so could be polarized by even weak electric fields around all real charges, until the entire electric charge of all real charges is cancelled out by vacuum polarization. This doesn't happen. About 1 part in 137 of the core electric charge escapes polarization and this is what the electron charge is measured as at large distances. So it is definite that the vacuum cannot contain any free charges. The only way polarization of the vacuum is possible is in a confined way, whereby strong
electric fields near the core of a real charge break up the structure of the vacuum charges, freeing them over a small distance around a real electron.
The freed vacuum charges then become polarized, cancelling out 99.27% of the electron charge. So there is some binding of charges in the vacuum which gets broken down by strong electric fields, freeing charges.

Cheers,
Nigel

 
At 5:19 AM, Blogger nige said...

Abusive ranting from Motl in his Amazon review of Smolin's latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618551050

Another postmodern diatribe against modern physics and scientific method, August 30, 2006

Reviewer: Lubos Motl (Cambridge, MA United States) - See all my reviews

The interactions between Lee Smolin and mainstream physicists are interesting. Lee often visits us. We smile at each other and Lee is politely explained why his newest theories really can't work. Lee says that he understands these arguments. Then he returns to a conference or a journalist and repeats that all of his theories have been perfectly proven, while offering even crazier theories. The newest theory says that neutrinos are octopi swimming in the spin network. Believe me, we like him but it is not easy to take him seriously.

A few months ago, I had to promise Lee that I would read the whole book before saying anything about it. So I did so. It was tough because the concentration of irrational statements and anti-scientific sentiments has exceeded my expectations. The book is primarily filled with the suicidal and absurd sentiment that all of modern physics of the last 30 years - the era of Lee's career - is a failure. The first part of the book tries to focus on technical aspects of string theory. The second part of the book offers a postmodern view on the scientific community and some radical proposals how to fix the "problems" that the author has identified.

As far as I can say, everything that tries to go beyond the existing popular books is completely crazy with one possible exception, namely some of Lee's general ideas about the anthropic principle.

What are the problems with Lee's physics? First of all, Lee reveals his intense hostility against all of modern physics, not just string theory. He believes that quantum mechanics must be wrong at some fundamental level. He also believes that the attempts to falsify the theory of relativity are among the most important topics to work on. In the context of string theory, he literally floods the pages of his book with completely insane speculations about some basic results of string theory. Because these statements are of mathematical nature, we are sure that Lee is wrong even in the absence of any experiments.

For example, he dedicates dozens of pages to speculations about divergent amplitudes at finite orders of the perturbation theory - amplitudes that have been proven to be finite. He also proposes that the AdS/CFT correspondence and various other dualities are wrong. In doing so, he ignores thousands of papers that lead to the opposite conclusion. Instead, he applies the methods of creationists and invents a "strong" and "weak" version of Maldacena's equivalence. There are also frequently repeated speculations that string theory and M-theory don't exist and many other similar "ideas", together with the most popular myth that string theory can't be experimentally tested. Neither of these things is supported by any results in the scientific literature, not even Lee's own results. I am afraid that it is fair to say that Lee is trying to sell things that could never be bought by the experts because he knows that his lay readers won't be able to tell the difference between a result and a nonsense.

More generally, Lee proposes a truly radical thesis that it is wrong for mathematics to play a crucial role in theoretical physics. This meme is repeated at many places and it is later used as a criterion to hire people in physics. He also blames the "failures" on the culture of particle physics that has already existed before string theory. For example, we learn that when Lee Smolin studied at Harvard, he was disappointed by Coleman, Glashow, and Weinberg who were "nothing like his heroes". Wow. The reason why they were nothing like his heroes was that they preferred calculations over philosophical speculations. Needless to say, Smolin would be disappointed by Einstein and Bohr, too, because they couldn't stand scientifically unjustifiable philosophical speculations either. No real physicist can.

Two decades ago or so, Lee was also disappointed by his peers who were excited by calculations in supergravity. He also denies the difference between renormalizable field theories and the rest, and so forth.

In the sociological part of this book, Smolin complains that no one takes him seriously and tries to paint the mainstream physics community as a group of evil people. Also, he proposes "cures" for the things that he views as "problems". This includes new ethical standards of the science community. For example, one of his rules says that conclusions must be accepted by everyone if their author is a person of good faith. Another rule, apparently applied to the other theories, says that they must first present a full rigorous proof.

These proposals are clearly meant to transform the scientific community to a dogmatic, non-mathematical, and irrational institution similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. He realizes that what he defined is a church or a sect, so he tries to correct this problem by enumerating a few features in which science and religion are supposed to differ. In my opinion, neither of these things has anything to do with the main differences between science and religion.

The main difference between religion and science is that science will never accept Smolin's ideas about the scientific method. Science will never introduce Lee's proposal of affirmative action for intellectually challenged people who are not able to fully learn the current picture of reality as painted by physics - people whom Lee Smolin misleadingly promotes as "original thinkers" as much as he can, without any rational arguments. In reality, gaps in mathematics are something very different from originality; in fact, these two things are negatively correlated, not positively. Lee can't understand the difference.

Also, science will never give up the principle that falsified conjectures must be abandoned - a principle that strikingly contradicts Smolin's thoughts about the democracy of ideas. Science will never abandon solid and quantitative arguments and it will never replace them by vague linguistic games that Lee Smolin prefers. And it will never accept Lee's recommendation that the scientists' opinion should be manipulated by the society's political goals such as Lee's "diversity of ideas".

The postmodern attack against sciences has had many forms, and if you want to see how serious threats the very basic principles of science will probably have to face from within, read this weird book that I rated by 2 stars because of its unquestionable ability to make you angry (and make young science fans frustrated). Unless science is going to be destroyed, it will continue to ignore Smolin's hints, despite the alternating good years and bad years. It will build on results that work and not on those that don't work, hire people who know what they're doing and not those who don't, and allow them to reach their own conclusions. Also, the role of mathematics and string theory is bound to increase, regardless whether Lee Smolin will convince thousands of undemanding readers otherwise.

 
At 5:40 AM, Blogger nige said...

FREEMAN DYSON'S 1951 QED LECTURES

Woit reports that Dyson’s lectures on QED, are online at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608140 which on page 70 states:

‘Because of the possibility of exciting the vacuum by creating a positron-electron pair, the vacuum behaves like a dielectric, just as a solid has dielectric properties in virtue of the possibility of its atoms being excited to excited states by Maxwell radiation. This effect does not depend on the quantizing of the Maxwell field, so we calculate it using classical fields.

‘Like a real solid dielectric, the vacuum is both non-linear and dispersive, i.e. the dielectric constant depends on the field intensity and on the frequency. And for sufficiently high frequencies and field intensities it has a complex dielectric constant, meaning it can absorb energy from the Maxwell field by real creation of pairs.’

Pairs are created by the high intensity field near the bare core of the electron, and the pairs become polarised, shielding part of the bare charge. The lower limit cutoff in the renormalized charge formula is therefore due to the fact that polarization is only possible where the field is intense enough to create virtual charges.

This threshold field strength for this effect to occur is 6.9 x 10^20 volts/metre. This is the electric field strength by Gauss’ law at a distance 1.4 x 10^-15 metre from an electron, which is the maximum range of QED vacuum polarization. This distance comes from the ~1 MeV collision energy used as a lower cutoff in the renormalized charge formula, because in a direct (head on) collision all of this energy is converted into electrostatic potential energy by the Coulomb repulsion at that distance: to do this just put 1 MeV equal to potential energy (electron charge)^2 / (4Pi.Permittivity.Distance).

Can someone explain to me why there are no books or articles with plots of observable (renormalized) electric charge versus distance from a quark or lepton, let alone plots of weak and nuclear force as a function of distance? Everyone plots forces as a function of collision energy only, which is obfuscating. What you need is to know is how the various types of charge vary as a function of distance. Higher energy only means smaller distance. It is pretty clear that when you plot charge as a function of distance, you start thinking about how energy is being shielded by the polarized vacuum and electroweak symmetry breaking becomes clearer. The electroweak symmetry exists close to the bare charge but it breaks at great distances due to some kind of vacuum polarization/shielding effect. Weak gauge bosons get completely attenuated at great distances, but electromagnetism is only partly shielded.

********************

CONSIDER A BATTERY CONNECTED TO A PAIR OF WIRES (TRANSMISSION LINE) 300,000 KM LONG:

It undergos normal redox reactions for 2 seconds if the cable was 300,000 km long. The energy flows out of the battery to the far end of the cable, reflects at the open circuit and flows back into the battery.

Illustrations: top of http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_3.htm (notice that magnetic field vectors cancel once energy current reflects from far end, leaving only the illusion of "static charge", however the magnetic field energy is still there although it is unobservable in normal physics, hence the factor of two difference between Einstein's equation for energy mc^2 and the Newtonian 0.5mv^2 for velocity v = c). For history of this discovery see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ub07mgib.htm Catt calls it the "contrapuntal model for the charged capacitor" and most of his writings on it are completely obscure or buried in speculation which contains obvious errors and so is totally ignored. I got to understand it after Catt sent me the original of his March 1983 Wireless World article "Waves in Space". That is a good title, "Waves in Space". The article was 2.5 pages. Catt spent 2 pages on a boring resume of historical facts everyone knows, but gives a brilliant summary of his experiments on the last 1/2 page (which is a continuation at the back of the magazine, which is why nobody bothered reading it) .

Once the energy is flowing both ways simultaneously, the electric field gradient is zero (the cable is all charged to the same number of volts) so there is no emf (electromotive force) to cause electrons in the cable to drift. The energy however, continues flowing, it always goes at light speed.

The battery doesn't drain after 2 seconds - either due to electron loss or to energy loss. There is no electron loss after 2 seconds because there is no EMF to drive a net electron drift current in the cable, and so there is no resistance either (which requires that electrons be pushed past ions, generating heat in the cable). Hence there is no heat production in the cable. This prevents any energy loss in the cable. Energy simply flows out of the battery on a 2 second trip to the far end where it reflects and returns to the battery. No net energy loss. Equilibrium.

Energy current flows because it is electromagnetic field energy which is carried by eternally travelling light-velocity gauge bosons. For the mechanism involving electron drift (electric current), see my analysis of the Catt Anomaly here: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html

If you have a problem with the idea that "static" electricity is actually continuously in motion as light speed gauge boson causing the "static" electromagnetic field, then tell me what it is. Most of Catt's conclusions about modern physics are false, but his direct experimental results on how cables charge up are correct:

http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_3.htm :

"Let us summarize the argument which erases the traditional model;

a) Energy current can only enter a capacitor at the speed of light.

b) Once inside, there is no mechanism for the energy current to slow down below the speed of light.

c) The steady electrostatically charged capacitor is indistinguishable from the reciprocating, dynamic model.

d) The dynamic model is necessary to explain the new feature to be explained, the charging and discharging of a capacitor, and serves all the purposes previously served by the steady, static model.

e) The static model, since it requires electric charge, collides with the Catt Anomaly."


*****************

POLARIZATION CANCELLING 99.27% OF ELECTRON CHARGE:

1. In the middle of the electron is the bare electron core, which is has enough potential energy that it doesn't get annihilated, which is why it is lasts without annihilation. When the real (or long life) electron is formed, it is formed with a positron, and enough surplus energy is used so
that the electron and positron get well separated and cannot annihilate after a fraction of a second into gamma rays (unlike the charges in the polarized vacuum). The radial electric field vector points INWARD, towards the electron core.

2. Surrounding the bare electron core is a cloud of virtual charges, mainly electrons and positrons but including also some more massive charges (particularly very close to the electron core, where the electric field is strongest, and the resulting electromagnetic energy density of the vacuum is extremely large). These freed charges only extend in the vacuum out to a distance where the electric field strength is sufficient to free pairs of
charges (this limit is the cutoff to the annihilation-creation operators used in quantum field theory, which results in the charge and mass renormalizations which are accounted for by polarization caused shielding).

3. The freed virtual positive charges (positrons etc) in the vacuum have a mean distance from the bare electron core which is smaller than the mean distance of the freed virtual negative charges (electrons etc). Hence there is a radial electric field vector between the virtual positive and virtual negative charges pointing OUTWARD. This cancels most (99.27%) of the INWARD electric field.

The whole concept of an electric field vector is an abstraction which doesn't directly describe the underlying dynamics (similarly, being able to
mathematically count oranges does not mean you know the mechanism by which oranges come to market, etc).

Clearly the underlying mechanism by which polarization causes shielding of electric charge is vital. The shielded energy gives rise to short-range nuclear forces in the vacuum such as the weak nuclear force in the case of
electrons and also the strong nuclear force in the case of quarks. I've explained that the mechanism for such forces is due to exchange radiation between all
charges being shielded between two opposite charges, so they get pushed together. Repulsion is mutual exchange between similar charges, so they recoil (the inward push on them is substantially redshifted since it comes from a receding universe whereas the exchange between two similar charges is not significantly redshifted, so is relatively strong and causes repulsion effects). If you have two widely separated apparently neutral charges, say two "neutral" hydrogen atoms (not hydrogen molecules), the forces between the two atoms are repulsion between the two protons by the mechanism just explained, and attraction between the two electrons by the mechanism already explained. (I'm talking of the forces when the two hydrgen atoms are say 1
m apart, not the forces when they are close as in a H2 molecule, where the geometry is such that the electrons can pair up.) The attraction forces and repulsion forces cancel almost perfectly, leaving an "attractive" residue of 1 part in 10^40, which is gravity.

The reason is simply that the charges add up in series via a random walk between all charges in the universe to give rise to electromagnetism (which is proportional to electric potential between say an electron and a proton multiplied by the square root of the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe, assuming - as is the case - that the universe is mainly hydrogen),
but the geometry of two "neutral" atoms only allows a straight line
addition! Since on any straight line across the universe has a probability of containing an odd number of atoms 50% of the time and an even number of atoms 50% of the time, and since the orientation of the atoms will be
random, the net electric potential from a straight line will on average be zero if there is an even number of atoms (which occurs as stated 50% of the time) and will be on average 1 hydrogen atom's worth of electric potential equivalent if there is an odd number of atoms in the line (which also occurs 50% of the time). Hence the always-"attractive" force (10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism) which is called gravity.

************


WHAT ARE GAUGE BOSONS?

The gauge boson is being described by electromagnetic fields (electric field E at right angles to magnetic field B and both at right angles to propagation at speed c), while the electric field E and magnetic field B are themselves described by means of gauge bosons constituting the force field in quantum electrodynamics. Circular reasoning, so progress in physical understanding requires the dynamics of the vacuum.

The reason I'm continuing correspondence with Guy and David is that I hope to get some sense as to how the vacuum gives rise to electromagnetic fields.

So far I understand that the vacuum has two basic states: one in which any charges are bound in some way so that they are not free to be polarized, and another (in strong electric fields) where they are freed and are able to become polarized around long-lived charges, shielding the electric field. The reason from quantum field theory for these two states is that if the vacuum charges were free to undergo polarization even in weak electric fields, they'd cancel fully the real charges. This does not occur.

Hence there are two states to the vacuum, a high energy state which occurs near charges (in strong electric fields) where the vacuum charges are freed and able to become polarized, and a low energy or ground state where the vacuum charges lack the freedom to become polarized by the weak electric fields far from real charges.

In order to escape from the circular argument that gauge bosons are E and B fields which are composed of gauge bosons, etc., we need a physical model for the vacuum ground state which describes what is actually going on. The model of the gauge boson is a bit abstract like counting oranges by number: lacking dynamics, but fine if you want the mathematical aspects (the amount of oranges and their quantitative effects on your bank balance and mass).

Although the vacuum ground state is not free to be polarized, that does not apply to photons of light, where the electric fields have never been measured. The energy density in a photon is totally unknown, and is probably high enough to energise the ground state, freeing virtual charges that can polarize. I don't know. I'm hoping that David or Guy has some sense and will be able to address this and work out the mechanisms by which radiation of different kinds (not just gauge bosons, but also neutrinos, etc) propagate in the vacuum.

My experience of having high expectations of Catt is very disappointing, he wasn't interested in the questions or approaches that I am interested in. So you end up like Frank Sinatra, doing things your own way (see Dr Chris Oakley's comments on his QFT pages). There are so many different routes to explore that you can't afford to travel with someone who wants to spend time doing something you know is a waste of time, when they won't listen. If that makes you arrogant, it also makes them arrogant, so you don't feel guilty going your own way alone as a last resort.

************************


CAUSE OF MAGNETISM INDIRECTLY IN YANG MILLS THEORY (ELECTRIC FIELD CARRIED BY EXCHANGE RADIATION, GAUGE BOSONS, CAUSES MAGNETIC POLARIZATION IN VACUUM?)

All electric fields are composed of gauge boson radiation. This contradicts Maxwell's theory, which is that polarization of the vacuum, resulting in a displacement of vacuum charges, causes the electric field. Maxwell is wrong because (1) his equation for 'displacement current' (caused by vacuum charge polarization) does not include a minimum (threshold) electric field strength for electric polarization and the affiliated displacement current to occur. Quantum field theory shows that there is a threshold electric field strength required to produce an electric polarization of the vacuum, which is why the vacuum is only polarized for a short range around a real electron or quark (if the vacuum could be polarized at any field strength, all charges would be cancelled completely). (2) a proper analysis of the Catt Anomaly replaces the role of displacement current by a radiation based mechanism. So there is no electric polarization of the vacuum at all by weak electric fields.

Magnetic polarization of the vacuum seems to have no lower limit, and is the entire cause of magnetic fields. Magnetic polarization consists of the spin axis of a virtual charge in the vacuum aligning perpendicular to electric field lines. Where there are no apparent electric field lines and just magnetic fields, what has occured is that the net electric field has been canceled by two equal and opposite electric field vectors. Similarly, where there is an electric field with no observable magnetic field, what has occurred is that the exchanged radiation causing the electric field is going in two opposite directions and the magnetic field curls of each are simply cancelling out the other. Catt proves this by charging and discharging transmission lines via a sampling oscilloscope that electric and magnetic field lines are co-eternal, because static charge results from trapped (oscillating) Heaviside-Poynting energy current, which always results in a cancellation of net magnetic force: this is illustrated at top of http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_3.htm

Catt sees the vector Heaviside-Poynting vector E = c x B (where electric field E, propagation velocity c and magnetic field B) as some kind of holy trinity. However, quantum field theory does indicate that electric field E is due to radiation. I don't see how progress can be made if magnetic field vector B is assumed to be some mysterious part of the vector which is beyond human understanding (which is Catt's view).

The energy of the gauge boson radiation is responsible for all electric fields, whereas the magnetic field is a response of the spin axes of vacuum charges to the gauge boson. The gauge boson moves along E field lines, and is actually creating the E field lines. The photon, which is a disturbance, moves with its E field vector at right angles to its propagation direction. Therefore, it is possible that the photon has sufficient electric field strength to free vacuum charges and polarize them, and thus to proceed like a real Maxwell wave.

The photon could be a Maxwell type wave because the electric field strength in the photon may be very large (sufficient to exceed the threshold for releasing free charges in the vacuum and polarizing them), but Maxwell's theory would have to be modified because the photon does not spread out and lose electric field strength with distance. We only know the energy, spin and frequency of photons, not the electric field strength.

The electromagnetic gauge boson is different from the photon, because the gauge boson travels along E field lines and creates net E fields to mediate force fields.

The photon by contrast has an oscillating E field at right angles to direction of propagation, and has no net electric field (the positive and negative electric fields along the oscillation add up to zero), so it is neutral.




******************************
The series of articles in this comment were inspired by Woit's book and blog and also by emails with other people (Ian Montgomery, Guy Grantham, David Tombe, et al.). NC 31 August 2006

 
At 6:20 AM, Blogger nige said...

Comment to Dr Christine Dantas' excellent blog post

http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/08/dyson-lectures-latexed.html


nigel said...

Thanks for this link to Dyson's vital lectures, which Peter Woit has now repeated on his blog. Dyson's paper is very straightforward and connects deeply with the sort of physics I understand (I'm not a pure mathematician turned physicist). Dyson writes on page 70:

‘Because of the possibility of exciting the vacuum by creating a positron-electron pair, the vacuum behaves like a dielectric, just as a solid has dielectric properties in virtue of the possibility of its atoms being excited to excited states by Maxwell radiation. This effect does not depend on the quantizing of the Maxwell field, so we calculate it using classical fields.

‘Like a real solid dielectric, the vacuum is both non-linear and dispersive, i.e. the dielectric constant depends on the field intensity and on the frequency. And for sufficiently high frequencies and field intensities it has a complex dielectric constant, meaning it can absorb energy from the Maxwell field by real creation of pairs.’

Pairs are created by the high intensity field near the bare core of the electron, and the pairs become polarised, shielding part of the bare charge. The lower limit cutoff in the renormalized charge formula is therefore due to the fact that polarization is only possible where the field is intense enough to create virtual charges.

This threshold field strength for this effect to occur is 6.9 x 10^20 volts/metre. This is the electric field strength by Gauss’ law at a distance 1.4 x 10^-15 metre from an electron, which is the maximum range of QED vacuum polarization. This distance comes from the ~1 MeV collision energy used as a lower cutoff in the renormalized charge formula, because in a direct (head on) collision all of this energy is converted into electrostatic potential energy by the Coulomb repulsion at that distance: to do this just put 1 MeV equal to potential energy (electron charge)^2 / (4Pi.Permittivity.Distance).

Can someone explain to me why there are no books or articles with plots of observable (renormalized) electric charge versus distance from a quark or lepton, let alone plots of weak and nuclear force as a function of distance? Everyone plots forces as a function of collision energy only, which is obfuscating. What you need is to know is how the various types of charge vary as a function of distance. Higher energy only means smaller distance. It is pretty clear that when you plot charge as a function of distance, you start thinking about how energy is being shielded by the polarized vacuum and electroweak symmetry breaking becomes clearer. The electroweak symmetry exists close to the bare charge but it breaks at great distances due to some kind of vacuum polarization/shielding effect. Weak gauge bosons get completely attenuated at great distances, but electromagnetism is only partly shielded.

To convert energy into distance from particle core, all you have to do is to set the kinetic energy equal to the potential energy, (electron charge)^2 / (4Pi.Permittivity.Distance). However, you have to remember to use the observable charge for the electron charge in this formula to get correct results (hence at 92 GeV, the observable electric charge of the electron to use is 1.07 times the textbook low-energy electronic charge).

8/31/2006 10:15:48 AM

 
At 10:10 AM, Blogger nige said...

Because this blog is overloaded and won’t publish anymore, despite the enormous quantity of useful information here please note for future reference that I’m probably moving permanently to https://nige.wordpress.com/ if I can get the issue of illustrations and diagrams sorted out on Wordpress (Wordpress will not host illustrations, so they have to be held on a separate site).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home