mass and energy are equivalent as far as the equations of GR go
This is just isn't right - the mass induces gravitational lensing in GR, whereas energy not (which is not physically correct).
Unluckily gravitation has been identified as being an EM force (based on 5 rotations)
Apples are apples, oranges are oranges - despite both contain some corns...
I'm really enjoying this thread. Thanks everyone for your contributions. Looking back at the title of the thread I can only conclude that if anyone tells you what mass really is you can be sure that it is obviously false information.
I have often thought that spacetime and mass are the yin-yang of energy. When it is said that a massive body conditions the surrounding space it is more likely the other way around, that the conditions of space create what we measure to be mass. In pair production mass-less energy is converted into mass and charge, likely by light being confined in a small space. It doesn't acquire mass and then start conditioning the surrounding space, it must be space itself that is modifying it own curvature in real time at the speed of light due to particular configuration of energy. It is that deeper connection between energy and the properties of spacetime that I think is missing.
I feel like new math like SO(4
I feel like a 2D fish when I see 2D interpretations of SO(4).
Credits to Hamish Todd. https://hamishtodd1.github.io/
I here just, for completeness reason, want to mention that there is also a fundamental mathematical proof that physical (real world) solution cannot entirely be based on group structures. But that's what SM/QED/QFT believe ...
I devoted about 3 years of my phd time (until 1990) to understand the subtle differences of what can be modeled and what can be calculated. It's almost a binary decision: Either your calculous is complete or closed both together is not possible.
In computer science this is expressed as stateless (functional)/ state-full programs. Functional programs are feedback free (not loop free) where as state-full programs have a memory that can interact with other programs.
Now if we go back to the hydrogen model, then we see that the electron acts like a memory (state) that communicates with different programs (E,B field of involved partners). Such a system, as 90 years of (to be expected) failure show, cannot be modeled as a mathematical group structure analogue as such a (group) structure is (must be) complete and of course state free!
I hope that future physicists, mandatory, do study information theory and basic calculous theory and do a bit more of complex mechanics to be able to understand that quantization is not a nuclear or EM phenomenon as it always occurs when rigid mass does force free couple in more than one rotation dimension. Thus quantum physics is higher order rotator mechanics. The only new thing that QM brought was the minimum energy (h) we can measure.
I have often thought that spacetime and mass are the yin-yang of energy. When it is said that a massive body conditions the surrounding space it is more likely the other way around, that the conditions of space create what we measure to be mass. In pair production mass-less energy is converted into mass and charge, likely by light being confined in a small space. It doesn't acquire mass and then start conditioning the surrounding space, it must be space itself that is modifying it own curvature in real time at the speed of light due to particular configuration of energy. It is that deeper connection between energy and the properties of spacetime that I think is missing.
It isn't missing. people just don't know about it. See Einstein's 1930 Nottingham lecture. He said space “remains the sole medium of reality”. People don't quite get this, but it's easy to understand it when you see it. Imagine you have a block of gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly representing space. You slide a hypodermic needle into the centre of the block, and inject more jelly. This represents a concentration of energy bound up as the matter of a massive star. It creates a pressure gradient in the surrounding jelly. Stress is directional pressure, the pressure is outwards, and Einstein’s equation Gμν = 8πTμν is modelling the way gin-clear ghostly elastic space is conditioned by the energy you added. But don’t forget that you added jelly to represent energy, and that the jelly also represents space. At some deep fundamental level, space and energy are the same thing.
QuoteI'm really enjoying this thread. Thanks everyone for your contributions. Looking back at the title of the thread I can only conclude that if anyone tells you what mass really is you can be sure that it is obviously false information.
Mass is just resistance to change-in-motion. It's easier to slow down a skateboard than a truck.
I agree with you John. Space "remains the sole medium of reality" is an excellent qualitative way to state it but we still don't know how pair production actually works in an exact quantitative way. And yes mass is resistance to change in motion but that is a description of how mass behaves and how we measure it. Sort of like describing a car as thing that moves when you step on a pedal doesn't tell me anything about what a car is or how it works.
DF: I'm afraid I won't be able to help you much more - and you do spend a lot of time trying to teach me physics at the level of A-level school physics - which is a bit silly. And your level of assumption about what I'm likely to learn in this area makes communication quite difficult.
My communication is crystal clear. You believe in some ersatz doppelganger general relativity where the speed of light is constant and where light curves because it "follows the curvature of spacetime". It doesn't. It curves because the speed of light is spatially variable. Like Einstein said. There's clear evidence for this in that optical clocks go slower when they're lower. Light curves wherever there's a gradient in the speed of light. That's equivalent to wherever spacetime is tilted. It's something like the path of the marble is curved because the board is tilted, not because the board is curved:
Marble from the house of marbles, board and arrow added by me
QuoteI should perhaps have been more precise. Of course Fuv (the e-m field tensor, describing electric and magnetic fields and charge) corresponds to mass-energy. However, since we all know that.
Aaaargh! It's the electromagnetic field! The electron doesn't have an electric field and a magnetic field, it has an electromagnetic field. You know Huxley, sometimes it's as if Maxwell's unification never happened. Just about all contemporary physicists talk about electric fields and magnetic fields without understanding that they're just the spatial and time derivatives of potential. They're two sides of the same coin. See the upper portion of the picture below? That's your typical photon depiction, with orthogonal electric and magnetic waves. But it's the wrong picture. The right picture is underneath. There's only one wave there:
The moral of the tale Huxley, is that once you understand the photon, you can understand pair production. Then you can understand the electron, then mass, and charge, and why electrons and positrons move the way that you do. Then you can understand the proton and the neutron and the nuclear force. And when you understand these things, you understand why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc², and is wrong. You understand why messenger particles are wrong, why colour charge is wrong, and why the Standard Model is wrong. And most of all, you understand why people like you stand four square in the way of scientific progress. It's because you've painted yourself into a corner with cargo-cult science, Huxley, and you will not admit that any of it is wrong. Of course, when I say "you" I'm thinking of all those people like you. People who have been digging physics into a hole for fifty years, and can't stop digging. It's got to stop, Huxley. It's got to stop.
I agree with you John. Space "remains the sole medium of reality" is an excellent qualitative way to state it but we still don't know how pair production actually works in an exact quantitative way. And yes mass is resistance to change in motion but that is a description of how mass behaves and how we measure it. Sort of like describing a car as thing that moves when you step on a pedal doesn't tell me anything about what a car is or how it works.
You'll never know how pair production works in an exact quantitative way. Because understanding how pair production works is qualitative. Ditto for mass. You can know all the maths in the world and not understand anything. People like Sabine Hossenfelder call it Lost in Math.
As for pair production, IMHO you have to understand the photon first. You have to understand that it has an E=hf wave nature, and that it moves through space. When an ocean wave moves through the sea, the sea waves. When a seismic wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. So, what waves when a photon moves through space? There can only be one answer, and that answer must be space. Space waves. That's what guys like Maxwell and Clifford were saying. Once you know this you can reason that space is curved where a photon is. Because displacement current does what it says on the tin. So then you can reason that another photon moving through this space will curve. So what might happen if it curves so much that it ends up moving through itself? Let's phone a friend on that. What's that Erwin? "Let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length". Ah, I get you. It's like "What does a hedgehog do when threatened?"
Religion.
Almost all things are religious at their core. (Not "spiritual religion, but perhaps better called tribalism)
And if you do not believe what my tribe believes, you are simply wrong and there is little you can do to change my mind.
It is amazing how this is a true principal of the human behavior.
Is Newtonian physics wrong? No. It is incomplete. Should it be thrown out with the bath water. I sincerely doubt it.
Is the SM wrong? It surely is incomplete. Yet it has predicted and had many, many experimental verifications. Will it be proven absolutely wrong.
Very doubtful.
So we have a few here that think the literal thousands of physicists over the past decades are blind and incoherent of thinking because they promote a
model that is different than "my pet theory". It being incomplete is the main argument for abandonment and to promote the owner's "pet theory". Once questioned to a point, often the defender then turns to disparaging the "opponent" personally, instead of showing emotionless factual support for their position.
We see this continually with the Rossi debacle. Once legitimate questions are asked, most Rossi believers start side stepping the blatant issue by name calling the skeptic, using such terms as "clowns", "pets" etc. All because they cannot factually defend their tribal position of supporting Rossi at all cost, they start attacking the skeptic personally.
Whenever I see this happen, it throws a up a very big red flag and causes me to question that person's basic understanding and discernment ability. It often reveals that their "religion" or "tribalism" view will cloud their thinking so intently that they will be hard pressed to admit error.
People can have differences and discuss them in a polite and scientific way. They will have open minds and approach the subject with "if good information / data" is provided, I am willing to reconsider my stance. When it is presented that "Time to end 90 years of nonsense and self deception!" and everyone start abiding by my pet theory, shows a worrisome bias that almost certainly clouds discernment. An attitude of "I know better and thousands of other educated and professional experts are ignorant" is a dangerous approach!
However, it does not necessarily prove one wrong.
Even science is a religion.
QuoteI feel like new math like SO(4) can solve some of the long standing problems of the SM
Why it should solve it? Why not SO(2)xSU(0) for example? This is solely arbitrary assumption - not to say, that each metric will add great wiggling parameter space to already overparametrized Standard Model.
Which is epicycle based approach in essence: the progress in theory arises when we decrease number of parameters for regression, not increasing.
Display MoreWhat people missed the last 90 years using linear math (in the logic , not the fudging) for group level manipulations was given by the old believe that we can only handle linear matrices, tensors - at most a bilinear form and as a force field conservative was the only possible selection.
This works fine as long as you neglect any magnetic coupling to a force field by a rigid, moving charge. But unluckily the magnetic field coupling is not conservative. The split between potential & kinetic energy is not symmetric and also not first order dependent on any relativistic effect. The magnetic force is not a central force either as it leads to increase/decrease of the rotation if you change the distance between two orbiting magnetic moments. The understanding is simple: A part of the potential energy gets stored in the rigid momentum of the orbiting mass(es). This happens because at a lower orbit the charge/current increases what adds more (rigid) mass to the momentum what would be harmless if the current would stay the same...
This was the main reason why the reduced mass Bohr model is imprecise as it neglects the magnetic coupling (R. Mills said first) . If we add it, then everything is fine and you get 10 digits precision as the measurement.
If we use the magnetic mass formula for the proton we also get the right answers and we can derived with highest precision what physics failed to do the last 90 years.
Without any doubt we can say that most measurements CERN made the last 50 years were based on wrong modeling of the forces and it is highly likely that they have to reevaluate all data for all measurements of the last 50 years.
I hope that THH at least is able to understand the difference between a "magnetic potential" and conservative potential like the Coulomb potential.
We can also argument from the perturbation perspective: SM/QCD fails because the model does not reflect the non linear perturbation that a moving charge that is exposed to the field generates.
THH asks for a new Lagrangian before he understands what is wrong with SM/QED/QCD. This is typical for people with a religious believe in what they claim to know.
Unluckily the SO(4) wave structure (2,3,5(,2x2)) is highly complex and only covers the stable state. I do not expect that we can give a Lagrangian as a simple one line formula. The question is only how many partial non linearly coupled differential equation will be enough. We have 3 wave structures and basically 3 couplings thus as SO(4), has 6 dimensions I expect the number to be 6...
Display MoreI here just, for completeness reason, want to mention that there is also a fundamental mathematical proof that physical (real world) solution cannot entirely be based on group structures. But that's what SM/QED/QFT believe ...
I devoted about 3 years of my phd time (until 1990) to understand the subtle differences of what can be modeled and what can be calculated. It's almost a binary decision: Either your calculous is complete or closed both together is not possible.
In computer science this is expressed as stateless (functional)/ state-full programs. Functional programs are feedback free (not loop free) where as state-full programs have a memory that can interact with other programs.
Now if we go back to the hydrogen model, then we see that the electron acts like a memory (state) that communicates with different programs (E,B field of involved partners). Such a system, as 90 years of (to be expected) failure show, cannot be modeled as a mathematical group structure analogue as such a (group) structure is (must be) complete and of course state free!
I hope that future physicists, mandatory, do study information theory and basic calculus theory and do a bit more of complex mechanics to be able to understand that quantization is not a nuclear or EM phenomenon as it always occurs when rigid mass does force free couple in more than one rotation dimension. Thus quantum physics is higher order rotator mechanics. The only new thing that QM brought was the minimum energy (h) we can measure.
So: this thread is useful in that Wyttenbach has summarised his reasons for (1) liking his hypothesis and (2) disliking SM.
I'm summarising here, and plan then (over time) to consider each point:
(1) W Model has success calculating some particle masses from closed form equations
(2) Electrons have internal state (spin I guess) that interacts with fields. This cannot be modelled by groups: because any structure modelled with groups must be state free. Therefore SM (which is based on symmetry groups) is wrong.
(3) Magnetic coupling to a field by a rigid moving charge invalidates SM
(4) W model equates electron spin to (some sort of) charge rotation
(1) is the key success of W model. (2) and (3) are perceived weaknesses of SM by W.
In addition:
Re asking for a Langrangian from a new hypothesis. Without this the predictivity of the new theory will be much much less than that offered by SM, and its success correspondingly less.
I'll let others comment on the above summary before I say more.
DF: So, what waves when a photon moves through space? There can only be one answer, and that answer must be space. Space waves. That's what guys like Maxwell and Clifford were saying.
Well, no. The field tensor Fuv or its GA equivalent waves. And the equations for this (Maxwell's equations) are Lorentz invariant. Maxwell did not put it together in one tensor and wrote separate differential equations. However space waving would be gravitational waves, quite a different beast.
Rest of rant straw man and ignored.
Quote from Bob#2Is the SM wrong? It surely is incomplete. Yet it has predicted and had many, many experimental verifications. Will it be proven absolutely wrong.
Very doubtful.
I'm sorry Bob, but it's a moveable feast that hasn't had many many expermental verifications. You need to read things like the 2003 physicsworld article Carlo Rubbia and the discovery of the W and Z by Gary Taubes. He doesn't actually use the phrase "scientific fraud", but he clearly implies that Rubbia faked it. Also read The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. It's a book published in 2013. In a nutshell, Unzicker says they selected the events they needed to get a bump on a graph, and then declared that this was 5-sigma proof of the existence of the Higgs boson. Regardless of the fact that the Higgs mechanism flatly contradicts E=mc².
Quote from Bob#2So we have a few here that think the literal thousands of physicists over the past decades are blind and incoherent of thinking because they promote a
model that is different than "my pet theory".
I'm not talking about "my pet theory". I'm talking about Einstein's general relativity and papers by Schrodinger, Charles Galton Darwin, and Born and Infeld and others. It's only when you read the original material that you realise that it's people like Huxley who have the religious/tribalist view and will admit no error. See for example
Erwin Schrodnger's 1926 paper quantization as a problem of proper values, part II
Charles Galton Darwin’s 1927 paper on the electron as a vector wave,
Max Born and Leopold Infeld’s 1935 paper on the quantization of the new field theory II
Read this stuff, and other stuff like it, and you will know better. Do your own research and think for yourself.
Well, no. The field tensor Fuv or its GA equivalent waves. And the equations for this (Maxwell's equations) are Lorentz invariant. Maxwell did not put it together in one tensor and wrote separate differential equations. However space waving would be gravitational waves, quite a different beast.
No Huxley. A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous. Not curved. So a gravitational wave is a transient inhomogeneity of space. Not space curving or waving. Now go and read what Percy Hammond said in the 1996 Compumag article The Role of the Potentials in Electromagnetism: “We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction". Read the material I told Bob about too.
(2) Electrons have internal state (spin I guess) that interacts with fields. This cannot be modelled by groups: because any structure modelled with groups must be state free. Therefore SM (which is based on symmetry groups) is wrong.
This is the penalty SM has to pay for it's oversimplification of the spin issue by just guessing +-1,1/2,0... The rigid mass spin is the memory of the state, where as SM is only interested in the "axis direction".
As THH seems not to be able to conduct a dialectic discourse and just knows right/wrong I have to balance this a bit. From a mathematical point of view SM just presents the kernel of one halve of the problem/solution. Classically one would say that sometimes it is a proper approximation and sometimes a total fail, depending if you stay on its halve (inside the kernel) or in the opposite direction (outside the kernel). A postulation of particles like quarks, especially the up quark, without knowing how to measure its most important observable (mass/energy) is of course a no go for a so called basic model of physics .
Aaaargh! It's the electromagnetic field! The electron doesn't have an electric field and a magnetic field, it has an electromagnetic field.
Both pictures are not fully adequate as the EM wave has no node except in a 2D projection and also the wave is just a projection of the torus-trajectory. But if you take a 1D derivative of the EM field then its e.g. a SIN(x) wave! If you cut (scissor twice) the Clifford in "halves" and stretch it in one axes the you get the natural trajectory (by just adding the same chunks again) of the EM field lines that are enclosed in a virtual charge. The charge runs outside orthogonal to the field line inside of an infinite möbius strip that follows a torus surface. (Same picture as in dense matter.)
Display MoreThis is the penalty SM has to pay for it's oversimplification of the spin issue by just guessing +-1,1/2,0... The rigid mass spin is the memory of the state, where as SM is only interested in the "axis direction".
As THH seems not to be able to conduct a dialectic discourse and just knows right/wrong I have to balance this a bit. From a mathematical point of view SM just presents the kernel of one halve of the problem/solution. Classically one would say that sometimes it is a proper approximation and sometimes a total fail, depending if you stay on its halve (inside the kernel) or in the opposite direction (outside the kernel). A postulation of particles like quarks, especially the up quark, without knowing how to measure its most important observable (mass/energy) is of course a no go for a so called basic model of physics .
Both pictures are not fully adequate as the EM wave has no node except in a 2D projection and also the wave is just a projection of the torus-trajectory. But if you take a 1D derivative of the EM field then its e.g. a SIN(x) wave! If you cut (scissor twice) the Clifford in "halves" and stretch it in one axes the you get the natural trajectory (by just adding the same chunks again) of the EM field lines that are enclosed in a virtual charge. The charge runs outside orthogonal to the field line inside of an infinite möbius strip that follows a torus surface. (Same picture as in dense matter.)
I have not got anything yet that changes my summary? I'm not expecting it to be precisely correct, but we have to start somewhere. Having got what are the claims to success of W hypothesis, or claims where it is less problematic than SM, we can examine them. So I don't want to leave anything out.
This is the penalty SM has to pay for it's oversimplification of the spin issue by just guessing +-1,1/2,0... The rigid mass spin is the memory of the state, where as SM is only interested in the "axis direction".
A separate question. SM does not guess quantised spin. There is plenty experimental evidence for spinors which are indeed NOT THE SAME as macroscopic angular momentum because the spin is quantised whichever axis it is measured in according to SU(2), with all of the expected quantum weirdness.
So what I'm asking is:
(1) does W hypothesis predict quantised spin?
(2) is it identical to SM?
(3) if not what experiment would show the difference?
QuoteWell, no. The field tensor Fuv or its GA equivalent waves
After then the photons should mediate matter not just an energy. During black hole mergers about half of their mass is radiated in form of gravitational waves.
QuoteSo a gravitational wave is a transient inhomogeneity of space. Not space curving or waving.
Isn't waving actually the same thing like transient inhomogeneity ?
Display MoreThis is the penalty SM has to pay for it's oversimplification of the spin issue by just guessing +-1,1/2,0... The rigid mass spin is the memory of the state, where as SM is only interested in the "axis direction".
As THH seems not to be able to conduct a dialectic discourse and just knows right/wrong I have to balance this a bit. From a mathematical point of view SM just presents the kernel of one halve of the problem/solution. Classically one would say that sometimes it is a proper approximation and sometimes a total fail, depending if you stay on its halve (inside the kernel) or in the opposite direction (outside the kernel). A postulation of particles like quarks, especially the up quark, without knowing how to measure its most important observable (mass/energy) is of course a no go for a so called basic model of physics .
Both pictures are not fully adequate as the EM wave has no node except in a 2D projection and also the wave is just a projection of the torus-trajectory. But if you take a 1D derivative of the EM field then its e.g. a SIN(x) wave! If you cut (scissor twice) the Clifford in "halves" and stretch it in one axes the you get the natural trajectory (by just adding the same chunks again) of the EM field lines that are enclosed in a virtual charge. The charge runs outside orthogonal to the field line inside of an infinite möbius strip that follows a torus surface. (Same picture as in dense matter.)
This is what makes things so apparently complex if one tries to force the 3D understanding into a 4D phenomena. I have been reading about the SO(4) mathematics and how it can be visualized and understood better. This has helped greatly me to get a better visualization ability of what the formulas mean.
