March 9, 2016 at 8:14 pm #431
Ouch! I don’t actually dismiss those “buzz-words”,
but instead consider them to be consequences instead
of “first principles”. And possibly even approximations.
That is, I imagine the space around us as a bundle of
fibers described by polynomials and their conjugates;
a first principle of sorts.
In short, I will make every effort to make our perspectives
converge; you with Boltzmann’s atoms and me with
Boltzmann’s entropy. Two seemingly different concepts, but
really just two perspectives of the same mechanism.March 10, 2016 at 7:45 pm #433
When I first approached the field of numerical
simulation, everything in my models used
“piecewise linear” approximations of functions.
I knew that piecewise approximations using
polynomials existed, but I much preferred
piecewise linear because it was so straightforward
in the calculation of differentials and integrals.
I thought I was pretty smart doing it the “easy”
Then somebody showed me that piecewise quadratic was
“easy” too, and better. Then I started playing with
cubics and so-on. Then conjugates entered the picture
as well. After playing with these mathematical objects
for years, one day in 1985 I discovered the Lorentz
factor in an “approximation”. I put that factor on the
left hand side of the equation and out popped a really
neat identity, the one described above. And it was not
merely an approximation, “piecewise conjugate” was
exact. I know that even “high falooten” math-nuts on
SciAmPF had never seen my identity before; I was
user-name ClamShell at that time and they refused to
absorb what was necessary to understand it, so they
dismissed my work on the basis that they didn’t understand
it. I’m really no Galois, but Galois suffered the same
fate at the hands of his chairman. So I think maybe that
I’m onto a “new” type of analysis, and for lack of better
words, I call it “Conjugate Analysis”.
And if I am wrong, I have little to lose, so I persevere
in the notion that gravity is a “conjugate field”( and so
are the other fields as well); a first principle.
Bill EshlemanMarch 10, 2016 at 10:16 pm #434
And I’d really like for mass to be directly proportional to the number of protons and electrons in a particle….minus the weight and impulse of the bonds. Is that what you mean
by your clear definition of gravitational mass? Might we
call it the “real” or the “weight” mass?…what I am thinking is implied by the German “schwere masse”.
Bill EshlemanMarch 11, 2016 at 12:27 am #435
And I’m now inclined to prefer that schwere masse
be called the “conserved mass”… the
“konserviertmasse”.March 11, 2016 at 7:54 am #436
my intention is mainly to state that gravity is caused by invariant elementary gravitational charges, similar to the cause of electromagnetism by invariant elementary gravitational charges. Both interaction fields propagate with c. The equations of motions of the fields and of the particles/bodies are to be derived with the use of invariants from a Lorentz-invariant action integral, integrated about a finite space-time domain. However, appropriate subsidiary conditions for the fields and for the particles must be considered. For the particles the subsidiary conditions are in accordance with particle number conservations.
Gyula SzászMarch 11, 2016 at 8:40 am #437
What concerns me now is not that the charges,
masses, and fields are conserved, but that the
Lorentz invariant expression itself, may only
be an approximation. And I am still under the
(stupid maybe) impression that a Lorentz
invariant derivation of motion is identical to
using the Lorentz factor to correct the Lorentz
transformation matrix. That is, that the Lorentz
factor and the Lorentz invariant are the same
thing. Are you able to address these concerns I
Bill EshlemanMarch 11, 2016 at 9:13 am #438
Conservation of Coordinates
Or the invariance of coordinate translations
I thought I might run this past you to get my
customary slap of your ruler on my wrist.
Maybe even a thread on the Gravitation
forum once it’s cleaned-up.
So, here goes. By demanding the conservation
of “KonserviertMasse”, it also looks like you have
coincidentally or purposefully demanded the
conservation of the Cartesian Coordinate System;
or for that matter, the conservation of ANY
coordinate system that may be chosen; so the
conservation really implies an independence of
the coordinate system chosen; as you suggest.
Under these circumstances, so-called space-time
looks more like a three-dimensional space with
an additional, but imaginary, forth axis. A “stage”
quite independent (it does not warp), of the actors;
if it were not for that minus sign(s) in the invariant.
That minus sign(s) made Einstein think the spacetime
“stage” warps from the weight of the actors and therefore
even partakes in the performance we observe.
I’m considering that it was actually BECAUSE Einstein
was unsure of what so-called “rest mass” is in his
theory, that caused his theory to warp spacetime in
response; and that your treatment conserves
“KonserviertMasse”,and in response demands
Is this just my mind focusing on trivialities? Or can
we repair my reasoning and discuss this from the
standpoint of physics instead “raw” mathematics?
Minkowski create the correct space-time connection as a 3+1 dimension manifold for the interaction fields which propagate with c. Within this manifold you can define several coordinate systems. The invariants which are given in the Minkowski space, or which you define as invariant, are independent from each coordinate system and invariants under Lorentz transformations: they do not change (are invariant) their values. Such invariant is for instant the distance between two points; the invariant distances connect space and time. Yor can define also an invariant action integral to determine the covariant equations of motions.
Invariant elementary gravitational charges are connected with elementary masses. The elementary masses are conserved. Coordinate are never conserved.
The gravitational masses of bodies, as addition of elementary masses regarding the signs of their elementary gravitational charges, are conserved. Einstein threw away the conserved gravitational masses. Furthermore, Einstein did not understand the “rest masses”, the inertial masses at the impulse p = 0. He could not interpret; he could not calculate the “rest masses”. Einstein thought that the gravitational mass is the same as the inertial mass for each bodies, but this is not true. Einstein did not understand how gravity works.
However, a difficulty arises: you can indeed assign invariants to elementary particles (such invariants are the elementary electric and gravitational charges, thus also elementary masses), but, you cannot assign a discrete point of the Minkowski space, with a precise velocity, to the elementary particles. That is the mean reason from the standpoint of physics.
Please Bill, continue our discussion in the Gravitation forum. It is interesting for other people too.
Gyula SzászMarch 11, 2016 at 9:18 am #439
“And I am still under the (stupid maybe) impression that a Lorentz invariant derivation of motion is identical to using the Lorentz factor to correct the Lorentz transformation matrix.”
How do you want transform an elementary particle from which you do not know the exact velocity?March 11, 2016 at 9:27 am #440
Bill, you must understand, even if you want use the Lorentz factor, you must know the exact velocity of a particle because of the “relativistic addition of velocities”.March 11, 2016 at 9:57 am #441
Gyula, I guess I’ll call on Heisenberg so
when the position gets uncertain enough, I’ll
know the velocity pretty accurately. And
I’ll measure it in a laboratory to minimize
I am still troubled by your requirement
that “space” cannot warp, so I am “all ears”
as to why it cannot warp.
And please don’t expect me to understand that
“space” cannot warp because your theory says
so; I desire the physical reason that led you
to find-out that “space” cannot warp.
That is, is non-warping an assumption and/or
a formalism and/or an interpretation and/or
a prediction?March 11, 2016 at 10:22 am #442
Einstein did not really understand how particle physics work. Quite the contrary to Einstein’s opinion, photons do not exist in Nature.
March 11, 2016 at 10:28 am #443
- This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by Gyula Szász.
Do you not understand that “space” cannot warp and as well the positions, as the velocities of bodies are uncertain?March 11, 2016 at 10:51 am #445
I cannot continue; my think about a fixed coordinate
system, an independent “stage”, is hopelessly crushed
by your statement, “Coordinate are never conserved”;
If I was not clear(I think I wasn’t), I was meaning that I
am considering that the whole coordinate system and
its shape, remain always the same, I think. And I am
still troubled by the inability of space to warp.
Einstein said this about “space”:
“When a smaller box s is situated, relatively at rest, inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the same “space”, which contains both of them, belongs to each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as bounded, and to assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to each other.
Before one has become aware of this complication, space appears as an unbounded medium or container in which material objects swim around. But it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre- scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable role even in scientific thought.”
Is this quotation disagreeable to you?
I will post after you help me collect my think.
Einstein did not understand how electromagnetism work, he did not understand how gravity works, but, he thought that the gravitational mass is equal the inertial mass without prove! Einstein was not a good physicists and he was a wrong mathematician. He did also not understand what space and time are.
Szász GyulaMarch 11, 2016 at 11:01 am #446
Yes, I do not understand why “space” cannot warp.
And Heisenberg tells me that position and velocity
are Fourier transforms of each other and therefore
cannot be precisely measured at the same instant;
so I tend to agree that positions and velocities
must be uncertain. But that “space” cannot warp,
I must have explained to me.
Yes, I know that the fields warp when in motion and
produce magnetism for an observer that thinks he/she
is motionless. So I am willing to accept more field
warping instead of “space” warping, but I don’t
currently know why. Why? And please don’t say
“because I told you so” But explain it to me in an
analogous way that Einstein attempts to explain “space”.March 11, 2016 at 1:00 pm #447
And please let me state for the record again;
I do not have a theory of anything. What I have
is a Shannon Information Theory “treatment” that
can be applied to any theory characterized by
flows of information, including, but not limited
to, boson-like(wave-like) information and fermion-
like(particle-like) information. And the Shannon
Information Theory “treatment” is flexible and can
account for phenomena, for example, like the non-
linear path that the rays from the Sun follow
because we never see properties as they are, but
only as they were, due to using communications
channels limited by the speed of light and/or
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.