Good questions Bob and Harry. If mass is eventually shown to be fields in some form of trap, then the particle wave duality would naturally fall into place. Lets try to keep our minds open since that is the way to learn new concepts.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Feb 4, 2015 12:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex mass Harry-- Angular momentum, which is mass moving in a circle or other orbit around some center point, has a vector quantity associated with it and is recognized as related to spin, which is currently considered a separate parameter associated with massive objectives, photons and neutrinos. The more massive particles assumed to have 0 spin may be made up of other particles with spin whose vector directions cancel at small distances. I have always wondered if down deep, at small dimensions, mass is simply a circulating field (curl) with directionality. Maybe a circulating magnetic field. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "H Veeder" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex mass > This exchange got me thinking about how mass is represented > mathematically. Newton wrote his Principia and formulated his three > laws of motion before the invention of vector algebra. Bearing this in > mind, I would argue the only quantity in Newton's principia which > posseses vector-like attributes is mass. The assumption that velocity > and acceleration in Newton's principia can be treated as vectors is an > interpretation of the three laws. However, vectors cannot be > systematically applied to mass without contradiction because according > to the first law mass of the same quantity can be both moving in a > specified direction and at rest without a specified direction. > Mathematicians who were keen to apply the techniques of vector algebra > avoided this problem by designating mass as a scalar quantity, but > this too is an interpretation. The question arises is there a > mathematically sensitive way to capture mass's dual quality instead of > reducing it to a scalar quantity? > > Harry > >
