Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 The outflow of informatons from masses is postulated as the way masses manifest themselve "at a distance". The hypothesis is that a mass shows its substantiallity (its physical presence) by the emission of informatons. By emitting information at a rate proportional to its mass, a particle sends information about its position (contained in the attribute sg) and its mass to other particles. Where does the "inflow" come from?
swansont Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 The outflow of informatons from masses is postulated as the way masses manifest themselve "at a distance". The hypothesis is that a mass shows its substantiallity (its physical presence) by the emission of informatons. By emitting information at a rate proportional to its mass, a particle sends information about its position (contained in the attribute sg) and its mass to other particles. THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION: Where does the inflow come from?
ernst39 Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 Where does the "inflow" come from? THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION: Where does the inflow come from? If you mean the inflow into masses, the answer is: there is no inflow of g-information into mass. The emission of g-information is considered as an intrinsic characteristic of material objects: it is the way in which mass manifests its physical presence in its surroundings. A particle is at the center of its own g-field (g-information cloud) that - as effect of the emission of informatons - is continuously regenerating and expanding.
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 If you mean the inflow into masses, the answer is: there is no inflow of g-information into mass. Page 18: "Within the cloud there is a stationary state: because the inflow equals the outflow" Where does the inflow come from? Page 3: We develop the idea that g- and einformation are carried by granular mass and energy less entities rushing through space with the speed of light. Because they are carrying nothing else but information we call them “informatons”. If they are massless and energy-less then: 0. Does this mean they are momentumless as well? 1. How can we detect them? 2. How can they have any effect?
swansont Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 If you mean the inflow into masses, the answer is: there is no inflow of g-information into mass. So why does the paper say there is an inflow? "because the inflow equals the outflow, each spatial region contains an unchanging number of informatons"
Mordred Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I am sorry that I cannot answer to all your questions. I think that's because my deduction of GEM is completely independent of GRT. When I developed the theory, it was my intention to describe a possible microscopic mechanism that could explain the laws of GEM and EM, and the phenomena of the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. An important starting point was the assumption that space and time are not constituent elements of nature but elements of our thinking about nature. To give a physical meaning to the concept "field" as mediator for gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, I developed the idea that "information carried by informatons " is the substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Y implies that this type of information is considered as one of the constituent elements of nature. In my papers I show that the known and experimentally confirmed laws of gravitation (Newton, GEM, ...) and electromagnetism (Coulomb, Maxwell, ...) can be derived from the "postulate of the emission of informatons" only using the mathematical techniques of calculus. The theory is consistent. An argument for this is the fact that the deduction from it of the force between two particles that with the same speed describe parallel paths gives the same expression as SRT (post #55, attachment3, p.4). Another argument can be found in the deduction of the relation between the force and the linear momentum (attachment to this post). A few answers: -The metrics I use to formulate GEM are chosen with the intention to accentuate the analogy with EM - I limit myself to special cases where a mass at rest relative to an inertial reference frame O' is considered by an observer linked to an inertial reference frame O relative to which O' moves with constant velocity v. In that situations I may use the simplest form of the Lorentz-transformation. - I didn't rename "beta": I call information about the velocity of a moving object "beta-information". . This is pretty much what I figured you were attempting, thanks for clarifying. However I have to ask why you didn't just use virtual photons aka virtual photon field for electromagnetic, and a virtual graviton field for the gravity field? This is the methodology in QFT Assign every point in space a photon, then drop a particle into that field, describe its geometry of influence. An oversymplification but accurate. The advantage though is this is compatible with QM. Virtual photons are off shell, meaning they don't have sufficient energy to be real. Again a simplified explanation. The one key rule however is that they do have particle properties. From your description of informations, having neither mass, nor energy but only information, Your informaton has no particle properties. Therefore it isn't a particle. Quasi-virtual or real. Any model particularly particle models or models that uses particle interactions must use the conservation laws. Spin,momentum,color,flavor,isospin,parity,charge, angular momentum,and energy. The photon is the quage boson (carrier of the electromagnetic force, is only direct (degree of freedom interaction is the electromagnetic force) The graviton is the quage boson (hypothetical) for gravity. As a gauge boson it will have an integer spin. It's assumed to be extremely massive. More massive particles are usually harder to create in an LHC Geometrodynamic field theory has the metrics using the graviton. It's also interesting you seem to want to define space and time, well it's simple really. Space is simply volume, that volume simply contains the particles of the universe. It's not fabric like substance, that's a common misunderstanding. Space time is simply any mathematical model that includes the time component. If you study GR in detail you will notice that the Einstein field equations include the ideal gas laws, it's fundamental to the Einstein field equations. This is an important detail your model lacks. Space time curvature is an energy density/pressure distribution of the influence of gravity upon the particles contained in the system. Take a look at the stress energy tensor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor notice the energy density term? What I found amusing is your references to GEM, yet no application of the electromagnetic stress energy tensor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor Now assuming your Euclidean model works, Here is a test Explain why a massive body causes the path of photons to bend? Photons have no rest mass and gravity only influences mass. So in your flat Euclidean model why would the light path bend? (This is an observed aspect, a good example being gravitational lensing) Now lets look at the photon and the graviton. In particular it's spin. Photons is spin 1, graviton is most likely spin 2. How does the informaton couple the two different spins without violating the above conservation laws? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton note first and second rate tensors
ernst39 Posted March 20, 2015 Author Posted March 20, 2015 Page 18: "Within the cloud there is a stationary state: because the inflow equals the outflow" Where does the inflow come from? Page 3: If they are massless and energy-less then: 0. Does this mean they are momentumless as well? 1. How can we detect them? 2. How can they have any effect? So why does the paper say there is an inflow? There is apparantly confusion about "inflow" into ... 1. When we consider an empty spatial region, the inflow of g-information is equal to the outflow. In that case, the g-information flow comes from the neighbouring masses that emit g-information in the direction of that region. (that is what the paper says on p. 18 about the in- and outflow in each spatial region) 2. Emitting g-information is an intrinsic characteristic of mass, so there is no inflow of g-information into mass (answer to the question of swansont in #72). Yes, informatons are mass, energy and momentumless. They can be detected as they - emitted by oscilating charged masses - transport a quantum of energy and show themselves as photons. The interaction between particles is treated in § 5.9 of the paper (p. 41). When an extern g-field disturbs the symmetry of the g-field of a particle, this particle experiences a tendency to accelerate in order to become blind for the extern g-field.
Mordred Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Here is a coverage of the Lorentz group representations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory_of_the_Lorentz_group [quote Yes, informatons are mass, energy and momentumless. . Lets see has no mass, energy or momentum. Then it's not a particle got it. What good is it then? How would it exist ? Sounds like an abstract placeholder
swansont Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 There is apparantly confusion about "inflow" into ... 1. When we consider an empty spatial region, the inflow of g-information is equal to the outflow. In that case, the g-information flow comes from the neighbouring masses that emit g-information in the direction of that region. (that is what the paper says on p. 18 about the in- and outflow in each spatial region) 2. Emitting g-information is an intrinsic characteristic of mass, so there is no inflow of g-information into mass (answer to the question of swansont in #72). Ah, so the bit about "The emission of informatons fills the space around m0 with an expanding cloud of g- information. This cloud has the shape of a sphere whose surface goes away from the centre O - the position of the particle - with the speed of light." that immediately precedes that section is unrelated. Got it. Yes, informatons are mass, energy and momentumless. They can be detected as they - emitted by oscilating charged masses - transport a quantum of energy and show themselves as photons. So they have no energy, but show up as particles with energy? Energy, momentum and angular momentum are not conserved? How do you transport energy but not have energy?
ernst39 Posted March 21, 2015 Author Posted March 21, 2015 Ah, so the bit about "The emission of informatons fills the space around m0 with an expanding cloud of g- information. This cloud has the shape of a sphere whose surface goes away from the centre O - the position of the particle - with the speed of light." that immediately precedes that section is unrelated. Got it. The gravitational field of a point mass m0 at rest is interpreted as an expanding sphere of g-information, whose radius is increasing with the speed of light and within which there is a stationary state. A gravitational field is a physical entity in the Euclidean space. We can associate this with Hubble's law. Indeed: T - the time expired since that field was created (this is the time period that the universe exists) - and R - the radius of that field - are related by the following relationship: R = c.T So, if one assumes that matter came into existence 1,4.1010 years ago, than the radius of the universe must be 1,4.1010 light-years. If one further assumes that the universe uniformly swells since the time of its genesis, than a point at a distance r from m0 drives away with a speed v: v = (r/R).c = (c/R).r = (1/T).r = H0.r with H0 is the "Hubble constant". So they have no energy, but show up as particles with energy? Energy, momentum and angular momentum are not conserved? How do you transport energy but not have energy? Explain why a massive body causes the path of photons to bend? Photons have no rest mass and gravity only influences mass. So in your flat Euclidean model why would the light path bend? (This is an observed aspect, a good example being gravitational lensing) Informatons have no particle properties. They carry nothing but information. An oscillating electrically charged point mass emits an EM wave that can be explained as the macroscopic manifestation of the harmonic fluctuations of the indices of the informatons (post # 51). At the same time it radiates energy in the form of discrete packet's that are intertwined with the wave and that we call "photons". I interpret these photons as informatons in a special status: namely informatons that at the moment of emission are loaded with a quantum of energy. Because photons have particle properties, in a gravitational field they are subject to a tendency to accelerate in order to become blind for the flow of g-information generated by the source('s) of that field. This explains that a massive body causes their path to bend.
Mordred Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Sorry that's the formulas for the Hubbles volume, the observable universe is larger than the Hubbles volume. This is due to expansion and the cosmological constant. Hubbles volume is roughly 13.78 GLY, but the observable universe has a radius of 46 GLY. You cannot have g information influence anything without g informaton carrying energy ,momentum or mass. However even assuming g informatons did carry the same as photons, the energy density/ pressure equation of state influence is insufficient to cause the entirety of expansion. Ideal gas laws cosmology under Ultra relativistic matter. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) w=1/3. Grr someone rewrote that page, Because photons have particle properties, in a gravitational field they are subject to a tendency to accelerate in order to become blind for the flow of g-information generated by the source('s) of that field. This explains that a massive body causes their path to bend. This is rubbish, Photons follow null geodesics. They have no rest mass which all your equations in your articles utilizes. Without rest mass gravity doesn't directly influence the photons path. The photon merely follows the null geodesic. If the photon gained rest mass it cannot be invariant. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity Mass is resistance to being accelerated by a force. Photons have zero resistance,therefore it has no mass. It is invariant. Now your statement informatons have no particle properties they carry NOTHING but information. Makes absolutely 100% zero sense. It amounts to informatons do not exist. The quantum information of a particle is the properties of the particles, you cannot have one without the other. Just as energy is a property of particles. Energy does not exist on its own. Not even as a field You cannot have one without the other, it's like having a length or width without an object to measure Stating informatons transport properties of particles, without being a particle is stating momentum, energy and mass exists outside of particles. Doesn't work. Those are particle properties. They must be transported via particle exchanges. Let's see g- informatons move at c but have no particle properties. Yet moving at c is a particle property, momentum. If it has momentum it has energy. Wow two particle properties. If it has energy then it has a total energy/mass equivalence. That's 3. So how come your stating g- informatons has no particle properties yet I just showed that it does? Via your statement they move at c? Edited March 21, 2015 by Mordred
swansont Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 The gravitational field of a point mass m0 at rest is interpreted as an expanding sphere of g-information, whose radius is increasing with the speed of light and within which there is a stationary state. Repeating yourself doesn't really add anything new to the conversation. My point was that you can't talk about a volume with a source in it and a volume that's empty. Those are distinct situations, and it's confusing when the discussion is mixed together. Informatons have no particle properties. They carry nothing but information. An oscillating electrically charged point mass emits an EM wave that can be explained as the macroscopic manifestation of the harmonic fluctuations of the indices of the informatons (post # 51). At the same time it radiates energy in the form of discrete packet's that are intertwined with the wave and that we call "photons". I interpret these photons as informatons in a special status: namely informatons that at the moment of emission are loaded with a quantum of energy. And here we have more of the same. You say they carry no energy (nothing but information), and then turn around and say that they do.
ernst39 Posted March 21, 2015 Author Posted March 21, 2015 As attachment it is shown how to calculate the path of a photon in a gravitational field with the theory of informatons. The mass of the photon doesn't play a role. Bijlage 2.pdf
swansont Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 As attachment it is shown how to calculate the path of a photon in a gravitational field with the theory of informatons. The mass of the photon doesn't play a role. Photons don't have mass, so how could it?
Mordred Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) As attachment it is shown how to calculate the path of a photon in a gravitational field with the theory of informatons. The mass of the photon doesn't play a role.You just don't get it do you? You cannot transport mass, energy momentum without particle interactions. Your g-informatons are according to you NOT particles. information is not an entity unto itself. In order to have information you must have SOMETHING to measure. Gravity only influences mass. [latex]m=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2}{c^2}}}[/latex] Photons has zero rest mass so [latex]m_o=0[/latex] Zero decided by any number =zero Therefore m=0. So why would gravity which only influences mass influence the photon without spacetime curvature? Edited March 21, 2015 by Mordred
Mordred Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 On a plus note, your Euclidean descriptives were well done on the graphs, there were parts in your article that I liked the format. I wish you spent more time on the Maxwell equation and notations. Might be something to consider adding. Keep in mind we will still keep poking holes into your theorem. All part of science. If you think I'm critical on your theorem I spent three years poking holes into my own that I found I couldn't fill (I tried solving dark energy via thermodynamic dispersion, couldn't keep it homogeneous and isotropic dang speed of light limit) 1
ernst39 Posted March 22, 2015 Author Posted March 22, 2015 Photons don't have mass, so how could it? Correction of # 88: the concept "mass" doesn't play any role in the calcularion. So why would gravity which only influences mass influence the photon without spacetime curvature? Because my starting point is that a material entity reacts on the presence of a gravitational field by accelerating in order to become blind for that field. On a plus note, your Euclidean descriptives were well done on the graphs, there were parts in your article that I liked the format. I wish you spent more time on the Maxwell equation and notations. Might be something to consider adding. Keep in mind we will still keep poking holes into your theorem. All part of science. If you think I'm critical on your theorem I spent three years poking holes into my own that I found I couldn't fill (I tried solving dark energy via thermodynamic dispersion, couldn't keep it homogeneous and isotropic dang speed of light limit) I appreciate your critics and remarks. I surely will take account of them but that will take time.
swansont Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 Because my starting point is that a material entity reacts on the presence of a gravitational field by accelerating in order to become blind for that field. What is nature of the interaction of a "material entity" with an informaton?
ernst39 Posted March 22, 2015 Author Posted March 22, 2015 What is nature of the interaction of a "material entity" with an informaton? It is extensively explained in §5.9 of the article. Here is the explanation for the case of particles anchored in an inertial reference frame. Let us consider a set of particles anchored in an inertial reference frame O. They create and maintain a gravitational field that at each point of the space linked to O is completely determined by the vector Eg. Each particle is "immersed" in a cloud of g-information. At every point, except its own anchorage, the mass of each particle contributes to the construction of that cloud. Let us, in particular, consider the particle m anchored at the point P. If the other particles were not there, m would be at the center of a perfectly spherical cloud of g-information. In the considered situation this is not the case: the emission of g-information by the other particles is responsible for the disturbance of that "characteristic symmetry". Because Eg at P represents the intensity of the flow of g-information send to P by the masses of the other particles, the extent of disturbance of that characteristic symmetry, in the direct vicinity of m, is determined by Eg at P. If it was free to move, the particle m could restore the characteristic symmetry of the g-information cloud (the g-field) in its direct vicinity: it would suffice to accelerate with an amount a = Eg. Accelerating this way has the effect that the extern g-field (the field generated by the other particles) disappears at the origin of the reference frame anchored to m. If it accelerates that way, the particle would become "blind" for the g-information send to P by the other particles, it would "see" only its own spherical g-information cloud. We can conclude that a point mass anchored at a point of a gravitational field is subjected to a tendency to move in the direction defined by Eg, the g-field at that point. Once the anchorage is broken, the point mass acquires a vectorial acceleration a that equals Eg. So, a particle m anchored at a point of a gravitational field experiences an action because of that field, an action that is compensated by the anchorage - That actionis proportional to the extent to which the characteristic symmetry of the own gravitational field in the direct vicinity of P is disturbed by the extern g-field, thus to the value of Eg at P. - It depends also on the rest mass m0of the particle. Indeed, the greater its mass the more compact (the denser) the g-information cloud created by that particle in its direct vicinity. That implies that the disturbing effect of the extern g-field Eg on the spherical symmety of the "own" field of the paricle is smaller when its rest mass is greater. We can conclude that the action that tends to accelerate a particle in a gravitational field must be proportional to Eg , the field to which the particle is exposed; and to m0, its rest mass. We represent that action as FG and called this vectorial quantity: "the force developed by the g-field on the particle" or the "gravitational force on the particle". We define it by the relation: FG = m0.EG
Strange Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 I fail to see how introducing something totally undetectable which produces results indistinguishable from existing theory is an improvement. This is known as "magic" in my book, not science. It is like Lorentz Aether Theory: indistinguishable from special relativity except it includes unnecessary Magic Aether.
Mordred Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) It also doesn't match how the Four forces interact. You have four forces, electromagnetic , weak,strong and gravity. Not all particles interact with every force. Examples are the gauge bosons, (mediators of the forces), neutrinos, dark matter. Photons only interact with the electromagnetic force. W and Z bosons with the weak force, gluons with the strong force. The neutrino doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force nor with the strong force. So in the case of photons, whose only interaction is the electromagnetic force. Why would it notice an acceleration due to the force of gravity.? It can't. The force of gravity cannot influence directly the path of the photon. It doesn't interact with gravity. The photon path curves due to space time curvature, it follows the null geodesic. However it is not directly influenced by the force of gravity. This is where your analysis is in error. The photon wouldn't be influenced by a [latex]a=E_g[/latex]. [latex]f_g[/latex] has no influence upon photons because photons have no mass to influence. Definition of gravity. the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. The photon has no mass. So gravity does not affect it. So it cannot experience an acceleration due to the force of gravity. Nor can it be influenced by your informaton, by your own admission the g informaton has no energy. It takes energy to cause a force. Your g informaton field would have zero energy density. So this means it's intensity is also zero. It would have zero energy-density. Edited March 22, 2015 by Mordred
swansont Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 So if informatons move at c, how will a remote particle react to the change in field if the source is moving? Will thee reaction be retarded by a time L/c?
ernst39 Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 So if informatons move at c, how will a remote particle react to the change in field if the source is moving? Will thee reaction be retarded by a time L/c? Indeed, gravitational phenomena propagate with the speed of light.
swansont Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Indeed, gravitational phenomena propagate with the speed of light. So how about answering the questions.
ernst39 Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 So how about answering the questions. Because informatons move at c, any change in the manner in which the source moves manifests itself at a remote particle with a time delay L/c.
Recommended Posts