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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
