The pillars of theoretical physics - quantum mechanics and general relativity - are in a stand-off. One of them will have to blink if this information paradox is to be undone.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129552.400-fiery-black-hole-debate-creates-cosmological-wild-west.html#.UwUeKM6Ybm5 One of the assumptions of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but it may not always be so. Radioactive decay was suppose to be constant but it is not. As the vacuum changes radioactive decay changes with it directly along with the production of virtual particles. LENR can accelerate radioactive decay millions of time over. LENR will show how to tweak the vacuum at and beyond its breaking point just like astrophysical black holes do. But LENR will use nano EMF black holes which will open a window into a new universe of physical laws. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:06 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil, I had not heard of loop quantum gravity before, I appreciate an > introduction to the theory. > > But it also gave me a good laugh that something called loop quantum > gravity has no concept for how gravity could work. > > John > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) >> >> Spin is a usually misunderstood quantum mechanical property of particles. >> It seems to me to be the most basic and primary property from which other >> "emergent" properties come from. >> >> The vacuum is a fundamental manifestation of spin where all the particles >> like the electron, photon , quarks, and so on emerge as secondary to spin. >> >> Spin is important in LENR because it is basic to quantum mechanics and >> the vacuum. I like loop quantum gravity because it embraces matter as a >> tangle and condensation of the vacuum. >> >> >> Loop quantum gravity >> Although it hasn't had the same media exposure, loop quantum gravity is >> so far the only real rival to string theory. >> >> The basic idea is that space is not continuous, as we usually think, but >> is instead broken up into tiny chunks 10^-35 metres across. These are then >> connected by links to make the space we experience and spin can support >> these links. When these links are tangled up into braids and knots, they >> produce elementary particles and spin is basic to every particle. >> Loop quantum gravity has produced some tentative predictions of >> real-world effects, and has also shed some light on the birth of the >> universe. But its proponents have so far struggled to incorporate gravity >> into their theories. And as with string theory, a true experimental test is >> still some way off. >> >> One basic scientific fallout of LENR is that its will provide these >> experimental tests and that its most basic principles will help codify the >> theory of everything. >> >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18612-knowing-the-mind-of-god-seven-theories-of-everything.html#.UwSqfs6YbyQ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:44 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> A magnetic field is produced by the spin of a particle and movement of >>>> spin is not required. >>>> >>> >>> I am reluctant to give spin much consideration, the definition of what >>> it is seems to change. >>> One thing I read stated that IIRC, the spin of a particle was wherever >>> it was looked for, uh huh. >>> >>> Ok, so does spin suggest there is no motion? >>> Hardly, spin is the definition of motion. >>> >>> So let us look at an electron floating in space, so does it produce a >>> magnetic field when you are not moving relative to it? >>> >>> Not that I have every heard. >>> >>> Ok, but I have heard of the magnetic moment of an electron... >>> >>> Looking it up it seems to say there is, if so then we should find >>> electrons to be attracted to magnetic fields, unless their magnetic >>> permeability of the same as the vacuum, which to me seems like saying it >>> has no magnetic property really since it seems unlikely that the >>> permeability of space would be displaced by a particle, and this would mean >>> it creates an undetectable magnetic field. >>> >>> Ok, so I am going to propose that electrons are attracted to magnetic >>> fields, but strangely I have never heard of this at all. >>> >>> Even if this is the case and I admit to being doubtful of this, is it >>> not the electric field that is of the electron that is rotating, spinning. >>> >>> This would create a dipole field. >>> >>> So it is still the motion of the electric field, in theory is this spin >>> is actually deserving of the term spin then it involves the motion of >>> something which means that is you were spinning with it, the magnetic field >>> would disappear. >>> >>> Looking more at this subject (which I have avoided) apparently electrons >>> are torqued by a magnetic field, great so why is a north pole and a south >>> pole not going to result in attraction? >>> If it did then I think particle accelerators would not work so well, the >>> particles would stick to the magnets. >>> >>> I'm going to go ahead and assume that this isn't a real magnetic field >>> that a lone electron is subjected to but rather a result of an electron >>> spinning around a nucleolus. >>> >>> I am probably very mistaken on all of this since I have largely ignored >>> the subject so I am sure i could be schooled on this point. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:07 AM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dave, I think the simple answer is to recognize that a magnetic field >>>>> only exists due to motion, and if SR is correct (it isn't and can't be) >>>>> then we should consider that every electric field can be seen as a >>>>> magnetic >>>>> field in a different reference frame. >>>>> >>>>> No magnetic field exists in all frames of reference, at least not >>>>> caused by the same thing, a wire creates a magnetic field from the moving >>>>> electrons, if you move with the electrons a different magnetic field pops >>>>> up from the protons. >>>>> >>>>> The motion of the observer doesn't establish a magnetic field, it >>>>> already existed in that reference frame. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John, >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be difficult to answer your questions without taking a lot >>>>>> of time so I think that you should keep one main thought in mind. All of >>>>>> the effects that I am describing are those seen by an observer and not >>>>>> actually evident to the pair of electrons. They view the world from >>>>>> their >>>>>> perspective while everyone else sees something different. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is similar to special relativity where the guys on the spaceship >>>>>> moving at nearly light speed are not aware of anything unusual happening >>>>>> to >>>>>> them. We observe that they are living in a slowed down manner. My take >>>>>> on it is that time dilation is our observation only and not real to them. >>>>>> The forces acting upon the electron pair is somewhat similar. There is >>>>>> no >>>>>> magnetic force present to someone that happens to be moving along with >>>>>> them. But, this is not true in the case where they are moving rapidly >>>>>> past >>>>>> an observer as I have been describing. The observer will see a magnetic >>>>>> and electric field that is generated by each of them. Are you willing to >>>>>> state that a moving electron does not generate this type of changing >>>>>> fields >>>>>> as seen by a stationary observer? Perhaps that is what you believe which >>>>>> would explain your responses to my points. >>>>>> >>>>>> If instead you realize that a moving electron generates a magnetic >>>>>> field seen by a stationary observer as I am pointing out, then it follows >>>>>> that a second moving electron must respond to that field. This is >>>>>> difficult to understand but it would be a good exercise for you to >>>>>> consider. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, before we proceed with this thought experiment please explain why >>>>>> an electron in motion, according to an observer, does not generate >>>>>> complex >>>>>> electric and magnetic fields that vary in both time and position >>>>>> according >>>>>> to his instruments. Then explain why a second electron in motion within >>>>>> the observer's lab does not respond to the fields measured by that >>>>>> observer. If you can adequately explain how this might be possible then >>>>>> I >>>>>> will reconsider my position. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: John Berry <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:46 pm >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson <[email protected] >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Harry, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see your objection and I certainly would agree that two electrons >>>>>>> moving in parallel to each other would not see any relative motion. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> question that we need to address is how does a randomly moving observer >>>>>>> make a determination that a magnetic field would influence the forces >>>>>>> appearing between the electrons >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How can an observer possibly change such though? >>>>>> Only if it effects the fabric of space so that there is now motion >>>>>> created by the observer dragging aether/higgs field/something >>>>>> through the experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> For the stationary electrons there is no magnetic field but >>>>>>> instead coulomb repulsion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But the electrons are stationary according to SR if they aren't >>>>>> moving relative to each other, since all reference frames are equal. >>>>>> So having an observer that sees things differently can only change >>>>>> what happens if SR is largely wrong about things being, well, relative. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If we now assume that we occupy a new frame that is moving relative >>>>>>> to the two electrons then what should we measure? First, the movement >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the first electron should result in the generation of a magnetic field >>>>>>> along with the electric field that is normally expected. This magnetic >>>>>>> field will have a component that appears in the location of the second >>>>>>> electron from our point of view. I assume that we are in agreement >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> this issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, we observe that the second electron is moving through the >>>>>>> magnetic field component that is a result of the motion of the first >>>>>>> electron. I can think of no reason that we would not be able to >>>>>>> calculate >>>>>>> the force experienced by the second electron due to the field. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The field does not exist to the other electron because there is no >>>>>> relative motion. >>>>>> Only if space or some field that creates an electromagnetic reference >>>>>> frame blows through the experiment can this occur. >>>>>> >>>>>> A moving observer may be near or far so even if they drag space >>>>>> with them, this area of entrained reference frame would not effect the >>>>>> electrons. >>>>>> >>>>>> Consider that there is radiation moving at near light speed and >>>>>> light speed from every direction regularly, each one would be an observer >>>>>> of the electrons generating a magnetic field to their perspective (IF SR >>>>>> is >>>>>> correct) and yet such forces do not and can not causally arise. >>>>>> Each one would bring a different axis, strength and direction of >>>>>> magnetic flux from the electrons as they see it. This still can't have >>>>>> any >>>>>> effect on the electrons. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is how I approached the problem. One of the expectations for >>>>>>> this line of reasoning is that there should be an infinite number of >>>>>>> values >>>>>>> for the force encountered by the second electron depending upon the >>>>>>> relative movement of the observer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I plugged in the force generated by this process when the >>>>>>> observer is moving at the speed of light, I obtained a magnetic force >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> is exactly equal to the coulomb force but opposite in direction. This >>>>>>> seemed to be quite a coincidence. A bit of reflection suggested that >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> calculation might well be an indication that electrons moving at >>>>>>> approximately the speed of light relative to an observer are indeed >>>>>>> frozen >>>>>>> in position due to infinite time dilation and not repelled apart. >>>>>> >>>>>> Using opposite charges also yields the same result. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose that I tend to think of particles moving within an >>>>>>> accelerator at nearly the speed of light as being similar to the case I >>>>>>> am >>>>>>> describing. They should experience time dilation due to the movement >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> should tend to remain grouped together instead of springing apart as you >>>>>>> might expect from like charges. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Particle accelerators need a lot of energy to keep electrons moving >>>>>> at near light speed, this seems a bit odd that in a vacuum they would >>>>>> need >>>>>> a great deal of energy to keep moving at a constant speed, I have heard >>>>>> of >>>>>> this being used as an argument for them moving through a background >>>>>> aether >>>>>> frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe this does happen, but if it doesn't equal an observer moving >>>>>> past charges since there are always near light speed observers that would >>>>>> be stopping all electric forces if this were so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Consider that your argument (and such a force) only makes sense if >>>>>> there is a difference between 2 electrons sitting still relative to the >>>>>> earth with near superluminal observers passing by... >>>>>> And 2 electrons moving with one another (but stationary relative to >>>>>> each other) through an accelerator. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to SR these 2 examples are equal as the earths reference >>>>>> frame is not special. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now time Dilation in a more complex issue if you want to argue that >>>>>> they experience too little time to move apart, but really except for >>>>>> gravitational time dilation, I consider a no preferred reference frame >>>>>> time >>>>>> dilation based on relative motion to be absurd and impossible once >>>>>> Doppler >>>>>> effects are calculated for or eliminated by communicating time rate at >>>>>> right angles to the direction of relative motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps this line of reasoning is interesting to further pursue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 5:51 pm >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John is saying is that the Biot Savart law for a point charge only >>>>>>> makes sense if the velocity refers to the relative motion between the >>>>>>> point >>>>>>> charge and another charge. Since there is no relative motion between the >>>>>>> charges in your example there should be no magnetic force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, I have been looking at a few presentations of the law and >>>>>>> they all make it appear as if the velocity can be taken relative to an >>>>>>> independent reference frame. If these presentations are logically >>>>>>> correct >>>>>>> than it should be possible for an observer to increase or decrease the >>>>>>> magnetic force between point charges by simply choosing to move relative >>>>>>> the charges at speeds much less than c. Since this does not happen, >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> presentations of the Biot Savart are misleading. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, it also seems to me that the Biot Savart law cannot >>>>>>> provide a logically consistent explanation of the phenomena of >>>>>>> relativistic >>>>>>> electron bean confinement described by Jones. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are describing the case of zero electron motion when you use >>>>>>>> the observation frame that is synchronized to the electron motion. >>>>>>>> That is >>>>>>>> just one of an infinite series of view points. In that frame only the >>>>>>>> coulomb effect is seen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Time dilation is determined by what an observer believes is >>>>>>>> happening to objects that he measures and in this case it is the moving >>>>>>>> pair of electrons. In that observers world both are moving at a >>>>>>>> velocity >>>>>>>> through his instrumentation so he measures the field of one of them >>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>> at the location of the second one. The effect of that field then can >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> calculated as it modifies the movement of the other electron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is similar to us looking at two electrons that are in motion >>>>>>>> within an accelerator. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: John Berry <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 3:13 am >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David, if the electrons do not see that in their world view, then >>>>>>>> the second one is hardly exposed to something that does not exist for >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every electrically charged object has in other reference frames >>>>>>>> various magnetic fields, the axis and direction of the magnetic field >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> decided by the relative motion of the observer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since radiation of various forms exists moving in every possible >>>>>>>> direction towards every charged object, that we can propose that every >>>>>>>> charged object has multiple magnetic fields with every possible >>>>>>>> magnitude, >>>>>>>> direction and axis in different reference frames that are being >>>>>>>> regularly >>>>>>>> observed in those frames. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course none of this is true if SR is incorrect, and if the >>>>>>>> motion in question is relative to an aether providing an unknown frame >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> reference... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected] >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We observe two moving electrons in my calculation. The first one >>>>>>>>> generates a magnetic field that the second one is exposed to. The >>>>>>>>> electrons do not see this effect in their world view. This is >>>>>>>>> equivalent >>>>>>>>> to what we might see if we look at two parallel beams of charged >>>>>>>>> particles. Speed them up to nearly the speed of light and my >>>>>>>>> calculation >>>>>>>>> is that they do not attract or repel each other. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:41 pm >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is the source of the magnetism? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, David Roberson < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I realize that my wording was flawed. I mean that the >>>>>>>>>> two particles are moving in parallel at the same velocity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: H Veeder <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 3:20 pm >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Roberson < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Once I made a calculation of the attraction between two charged >>>>>>>>>>> particles that are moving together at a constant velocity relative >>>>>>>>>>> to my >>>>>>>>>>> frame of reference. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as the >>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the two charges approached the speed of light, a perfect >>>>>>>>>>> balance between the electric force and the magnetic force was >>>>>>>>>>> achieved. >>>>>>>>>>> This implied that there would be precisely zero electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>>>>> between the two and hence no acceleration either together or apart >>>>>>>>>>> at the >>>>>>>>>>> speed of light. This matches the special theory of relativity >>>>>>>>>>> since at >>>>>>>>>>> light speed the time dilation reaches infinity for the objects >>>>>>>>>>> being viewed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Since their time was slowed down to zero, they should not be >>>>>>>>>>> seen as accelerating towards or away from each other. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dave, what do you mean by "moving together"? Moving on parallel >>>>>>>>>> paths at constant velocity or moving off in different directions at >>>>>>>>>> constant velocity? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
