swansont Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 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. So then how does a gravitational system shed gravitational energy and angular momentum, as they would have to do under acceleration? Informatons don't have energy or angular momentum, right?
ernst39 Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 So then how does a gravitational system shed gravitational energy and angular momentum, as they would have to do under acceleration? Informatons don't have energy or angular momentum, right? No, informatons don't have energy nor (angular) momentum. The tendency of mass to become blind for extern g-fields (flows of g-information generated by other masses) exerts an action on a particle: a free mass is accelerating and in the case of an anchored particle, a reaction compensates the action. In post #94 the gravitational force FG on a particle with rest mass m0 in a gravitational field Eg is defined by: FG = m0.Eg. As soon the gravitational force is defined, gravitational energy and momentum as well as the conservation laws can be deduced by classical mechanics. Per exemple energy is introduced as follows. Let's consider the construction of a system of two particles anchored in an inertial reference frame. Starting with an empty space, the placement of the first particle doesn't demand work. To bring - through equilibrium states - the second mass to its place, there is needed an external force Fext = - FG (FG is the gravitational force exerted by the first mass on the second). The work done by this force is the gravitational potential energy cumulated in the system of the two particles. This reasoning can easily be extended to a system of N masses and to a mass continuum.
swansont Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 No, informatons don't have energy nor (angular) momentum. The tendency of mass to become blind for extern g-fields (flows of g-information generated by other masses) exerts an action on a particle: a free mass is accelerating and in the case of an anchored particle, a reaction compensates the action. In post #94 the gravitational force FG on a particle with rest mass m0 in a gravitational field Eg is defined by: FG = m0.Eg. As soon the gravitational force is defined, gravitational energy and momentum as well as the conservation laws can be deduced by classical mechanics. Per exemple energy is introduced as follows. Let's consider the construction of a system of two particles anchored in an inertial reference frame. Starting with an empty space, the placement of the first particle doesn't demand work. To bring - through equilibrium states - the second mass to its place, there is needed an external force Fext = - FG (FG is the gravitational force exerted by the first mass on the second). The work done by this force is the gravitational potential energy cumulated in the system of the two particles. This reasoning can easily be extended to a system of N masses and to a mass continuum. According to relativity, two bodies orbiting each other will radiate gravitational energy (also angular momentum), and the effects of this have been observed with binary pulsars. This is a relativistic effect, not covered by Newtonian physics. Since informatons can't do this, how does it happen?
Mordred Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 This still doesn't answer how the force of gravity can affect massless particles either. I'm still waiting for that answer (without using null geodesics) -1
ernst39 Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 According to relativity, two bodies orbiting each other will radiate gravitational energy (also angular momentum), and the effects of this have been observed with binary pulsars. This is a relativistic effect, not covered by Newtonian physics. Since informatons can't do this, how does it happen? In §6 of the article it is explained that accelerated masses radiate gravitational energy. That Newtonian physics don't cover this effect is because Newtonian description of gravity (unlinke GEM) don't take in account the effects of the movement (rotation) of gravitating objects. This still doesn't answer how the force of gravity can affect massless particles either. I'm still waiting for that answer (without using null geodesics) In the context of the theory of informatons, the primary effect of a gravatational field on a particle is accelerating that particle. The concept "force of gravity" is in §5.9 defined as the action that an observer couples to that effect in the case of a particle with rest mass and is therefore not applicable in the case of a photon. "Geodetics" are concepts introduced in another context.
swansont Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 In §6 of the article it is explained that accelerated masses radiate gravitational energy. That Newtonian physics don't cover this effect is because Newtonian description of gravity (unlinke GEM) don't take in account the effects of the movement (rotation) of gravitating objects. So then what's the utility of informatons? They don't seem to do anything. Is there any experiment that would confirm they exist?
Mordred Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Informatons have no energy or momentum it cannot accelerate anything. It takes energy to cause a change in acceleration. Gravity itself cannot accelerate photons, gravity doesn't interact with photons photons has no mass for gravity to interact with. It is the curvature of the null geodesic, that causes the change in direction. You seem to be giving your informatons magical abilities, according to your model they have no energy or momentum, yet they can cause an influence that even gravity cannot influence. How is that suppose to make sense? Edited March 24, 2015 by Mordred
ernst39 Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 So then what's the utility of informatons? They don't seem to do anything. Is there any experiment that would confirm they exist? I repeat that the theory of informatons is developed with the only intention to explain - in a rather simple way - the formal analogy between the GEM description of gravito-electromagnetism and the Maxwell description of electromagnetism. Just as all other theories also this theory starts from an hypothesis, namely that "information" is the substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, that these fields are more than purely mathematical or geometric constructions. From that hyposthesis the laws of GEM an EM - that are controllable statements about how nature works - are mathematically deduced. At his time I cannot prove that informatons - introduced as the constituent elements of information - exist, nor can I prove that they don't exist. Informatons have no energy or momentum it cannot accelerate anything. It takes energy to cause a change in acceleration. Gravity itself cannot accelerate photons, gravity doesn't interact with photons photons has no mass for gravity to interact with. It is the curvature of the null geodesic, that causes the change in direction. You seem to be giving your informatons magical abilities, according to your model they have no energy or momentum, yet they can cause an influence that even gravity cannot influence. How is that suppose to make sense? Informatons are conceived as the constituent elements of the fields that play an intermediate role in the gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions as they are described by GEM and EM. Acceleration is the effect of the influence of the field (the cloud of informatons as a whole), not of the individual informatons.
swansont Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I repeat that the theory of informatons is developed with the only intention to explain - in a rather simple way - the formal analogy between the GEM description of gravito-electromagnetism and the Maxwell description of electromagnetism. Just as all other theories also this theory starts from an hypothesis, namely that "information" is the substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, that these fields are more than purely mathematical or geometric constructions. From that hyposthesis the laws of GEM an EM - that are controllable statements about how nature works - are mathematically deduced. At his time I cannot prove that informatons - introduced as the constituent elements of information - exist, nor can I prove that they don't exist. What you have is an hypothesis, not a theory. And are you acknowledging that this idea is not, even in principle, falsifiable?
ernst39 Posted March 24, 2015 Author Posted March 24, 2015 What you have is an hypothesis, not a theory. And are you acknowledging that this idea is not, even in principle, falsifiable? Why it's not a theory? I'm waiting for serious arguments that demonstrate that the idea doesn't make sense.
Klaynos Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Why it's not a theory? I'm waiting for serious arguments that demonstrate that the idea doesn't make sense. ! Moderator Note That's not how science works, theories are the top of the triangle, they are well tested using quantitative, falsifiable predictions. We also expect some of this from people posting in our speculations section. Please reread our guidelines on the speculations section. Can you please answer Swansont's pretty simple question, in principle is your idea falsifiable?
swansont Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Why it's not a theory? I'm waiting for serious arguments that demonstrate that the idea doesn't make sense. Theories are falsifiable and have experimental support for them, using the scientific definition of "theory". It's up to you to show that nature behaves the way that you predict. How do we do that?
Mordred Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Why it's not a theory? I'm waiting for serious arguments that demonstrate that the idea doesn't make sense. We are supplying serious answers why it doesn't make sense. 1) a field regardless of type must have energy whether that energy is scalar or vectoral to influence a particle or body in motion. 2) a gravitational field cannot directly influence a massless particle, therefore cannot change its acceleration. Your model is strictly Euclidean. GEM Includes the metric equivalence to the Eistein field equations, where your model specifically does not.(your model being Newtonian, hence I'm asking questions based in the Newtonian limits) 3) there is no possible way to measure or detect informatons, as they have zero particle properties, or even field like properties. No energy, momentum, charge etc. Sounds like solid reasons why your model doesn't make sense. I was hoping this would have hinted at the problem [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. what I wanted you to show is the connection to the correct momentum, and how gravity is influenced by energy, and vice versa. Relativistic mass is an old term, you may want to replace it with inertial mass. Your paper included the relativistic momentum equation, but you didn't correlate the details on how energy itself causes and can be influenced by gravity. This is usually done by the stress energy tensor. Your replies above indicated you missed that connection in your post containing this reply. 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."We consider - relative to an inertial reference frame O - a photon that is moving in the equatorial plane of a rotating massive spherical body. This body is the source of a gravitational field The g-field points to the center of the body, the g-induction is perpendicular to the plane and points into the plane. To become blind for the influence of the gravitational field , the photon will accelerate relative...." your Bilage 2.1 pdf paper did not include a proper solution. By the way the main reason I pointed this out is that mass is in the modern viewpoint taken to mean the invariant or rest mass. The relativistic momentum equation you have is derived from the total energy. [latex]e=\sqrt{p^2c^2+m_o^2c^4}[/latex] Total energy should not be thought of a variable mass (relativistic mass) You should show how the last formula connects to gravitational redshift. Anyways you will still need the stress energy tensor and null geodesics.(that was the hint to look deeper into the Maxwell equations and the electromagnetic stress tensor) After all the stress energy momentum tensor is what shows how energy is influenced by gravity, not the Newtonian formulas. Particularly since your not showing the Lorentz factors, or using space time. (Even though some of your equations include the lorentz factor) you ignore the length contraction and time dilation) So your only covering HALF the transformation from rest frame to the inertial frame for example the Four momentum tensor (4 vectors) [latex]p^{\mu}=(\frac{e}{c},p_x,p_y,p_z)[/latex] Where [latex]p^0=\frac{e}{c}[/latex] is your time vector. (Travelling through time) The other three components are travelling through space. This is what you don't show an equivalence for...... Remember our job is to punch holes into your theorem. It's your job to fill them. Edited March 25, 2015 by Mordred
ernst39 Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Because the mathematical deductions of the theory lead to the GEM description of gravity and to the Maxwell description of electromagnetism, the theory would be untenable if observations would be made that conflict with these descriptions of the macroscopic world.
Strange Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Because the mathematical deductions of the theory lead to the GEM description of gravity and to the Maxwell description of electromagnetism, the theory would be untenable if observations would be made that conflict with these descriptions of the macroscopic world. Even if that were true, there is still no evidence of your magic informationotrons.
imatfaal Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Even if that were true, there is still no evidence of your magic informationotrons. There is no evidence of the foundations of any of our theories - that which is axiomatic / foundational must be the lowest level otherwise the model wouldn't be axiomatic/foundational. The evidence comes from the precision of the observational predictions - ie at least one level of abstraction above that in which we make assumptions. I like our current theories and am NOT arguing for GEM - but a brief reading (not here but on other reference sites) seems to imply that much of the mathematical formalism of GEM works. It differs from ideas such as Lorentz Aether in that if it is true then it provides a single mathematical basis for both electromagnetism and gravity (this is where Heaviside was heading). This would be a benefit I think the OP needs to make it clear what sections of currently accepted physics he is relying upon and what is being replaced. If an area of physics is no longer relied upon then the OP MUST show how the new theory generates models that are at least accurate as present models - but conversely the OP does not need to show how his model generates the non-empirical/more mathematical features of discarded physics.
Strange Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I like our current theories and am NOT arguing for GEM - but a brief reading (not here but on other reference sites) seems to imply that much of the mathematical formalism of GEM works. I don't disagree. But the GEM doesn't require undetectable and physically implausible "informatons", any more than SR requires Lorentz's aether. Claiming that magic particles are the mechanism may be valid philosophy (?) but it isn't science. Edited March 25, 2015 by Strange
Mordred Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I don't particularly have a problem with GEM, it does have several compatible stress tensor, and includes the Levi-Cevitti connection. There are some variants that include Lorentz boosts. If the Op showed these it would have been helpful. As is I didn't see enough in his papers to reflect how he's relating GEM to his informatons. This is where I've been trying to encourage better clarity. Though GEM isn't an area I studied in great detail from what I've read on the subject is intriguing. Something explaining how informatons in these metrics would be what I would look for when I see GEM being referenced. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311030 Edited March 25, 2015 by Mordred
ernst39 Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 I think the OP needs to make it clear what sections of currently accepted physics he is relying upon and what is being replaced. If an area of physics is no longer relied upon then the OP MUST show how the new theory generates models that are at least accurate as present models - but conversely the OP does not need to show how his model generates the non-empirical/more mathematical features of discarded physics. I am relying on the physics of the calculus based courses for science and engineering students and on special relativity. Adding to the arsenal of physical concepts "information carried by informatons" makes it possible to clarify the nature of and the relation between gravitational and electromagnetic fields, and demonstrates the need to extend Newton's laws of universal gravitation, what leads to the mathematical formalism of GEM. As is I didn't see enough in his papers to reflect how he's relating GEM to his informatons. This is where I've been trying to encourage better clarity. The theory identifies the informatons as the constituent elements of gravitational (and EM) fields, and shows that the laws governing these fields (the mathematical formalism of GEM (and EM)) mathematically can be deduced from the kinematics of the informatons. One could say that the relation between the theory of informatons and GEM (and EM) is similar to that of the "kinetic theory of gases" to the "ideal-gas law": the informatons play in the case of fields - to a certain extent - the role that the molecules play in the case of gases.
swansont Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I am relying on the physics of the calculus based courses for science and engineering students and on special relativity. Apparently you skipped over some parts, like conservation of momentum. Two particles attracting/repelling/scattering off of each other must transfer momentum. They do this via the exchange of virtual photons. If informatons carry no momentum, they are incapable of mediating the exchange. There are also issues with virtual photon polarizations, which you can't cover, because informatons carry no angular momentum. The bottom line is that this is inherently quantum mechanical, and you are attempting a classical solution, which does not suffice. It's more complex than can be attacked armed with "the physics of the calculus based courses for science and engineering students and on special relativity"
ernst39 Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Apparently you skipped over some parts, like conservation of momentum. Two particles attracting/repelling/scattering off of each other must transfer momentum. They do this via the exchange of virtual photons. If informatons carry no momentum, they are incapable of mediating the exchange. There are also issues with virtual photon polarizations, which you can't cover, because informatons carry no angular momentum. The bottom line is that this is inherently quantum mechanical, and you are attempting a classical solution, which does not suffice. It's more complex than can be attacked armed with "the physics of the calculus based courses for science and engineering students and on special relativity" The theory has no problems with conservation and transfer of momentum and energy on the macroscopic level, but she is not developed with the aim to explain the interactions between elementary particles.
swansont Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 The theory has no problems with conservation and transfer of momentum and energy on the macroscopic level, but she is not developed with the aim to explain the interactions between elementary particles. So what's the point? We have a quantum theory of interaction for E&M, and it works exceedingly well.
ernst39 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 So what's the point? We have a quantum theory of interaction for E&M, and it works exceedingly well. The point is that the "theory of informatons" - whose fundamentals are presented in post # 41 - provides a theoretical foundation for the presumption of Heaviside that there is a formal analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism; and that it - by extension - also provides a theoretical basis for GEM. It was not the intention nor the ambition to make statements about the behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level.
swansont Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 The point is that the "theory of informatons" - whose fundamentals are presented in post # 41 - provides a theoretical foundation for the presumption of Heaviside that there is a formal analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism; and that it - by extension - also provides a theoretical basis for GEM. It was not the intention nor the ambition to make statements about the behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level. If it's untestable, it doesn't provide a basis for anything. It's ad-hoc, and that's not science.
ernst39 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 it doesn't provide a basis for anything. It's ad-hoc, and that's not science. This is a possible opinion, not a motiviated evaluation.
Recommended Posts