That's a quote from David J Wineland, a Nobel Prize wining physicist, no less. Straight from Duffield's link. I'm surprised there's much argument over this.
Nobody is arguing about this. The connection to light (going slower) is the problem.
That's a quote from David J Wineland, a Nobel Prize wining physicist, no less. Straight from Duffield's link. I'm surprised there's much argument over this.
Nobody is arguing about this. The connection to light (going slower) is the problem.
Well, no. Proper time (for an inertial frame) measures causal dynamics in a spacetime. Motion is defined by that.
This is a contradiction to logic. Time can only be measured/defined due to existing "real" motion not the other way round. No motion no time!
We can always measure/detect motion without time as all our ancestor have done this without a clock. But of course only using time will give a real good model!
Time as physicists use it is a mathematical mean to linearize the behavior of motion. Time is not a physical fact as most physical object to do follow time. We say time is a mathematical crutch to model the world.
Information theory learns that time cannot be a global time arrow at least such an arrow will not be measurable. This has severe consequences as two independent inertial systems following the Einstein GER relation cannot be proven to really do it as the proof would need an absolute time arrow. (This is the same error SM makes with his sloppy formalism...)
Wrong explanations are as good as shooting the cow at the bullet!
But every thing changes if we switch to models with higher dimensions than 6.
he four-potential is at a maximum in the middle of the photon where E and B are zero.
The true absolute E/B fields are complex and thus not zero at the same time. The logic above works only for the real part.
It isn't. Remember this: Light goes slower when it's lower.
This is was the "true" clock says. But you say time is based on path length of light, that in fact is shorter in the lower position and we thus should see the opposite behavior.
I believe we cannot separate a single behavior (speed of light) from the over all atomic clock behavior that is working slower - most likely because the electronics (bound electrons ) that is true mass based follows gravitation laws. Also the emitting nucleus is much more affected by gravity than the final measured photon.
I think this thread is veering off topic (unsurprisingly). Anyway just wanted to add that as the electric sun model is being strongly validated by the results of the SAFIRE project, probably in the future the electric black hole has chances to do so (which in turn would mean that black holes are highly energetic plasmoids) and if that happens all the fantastic scenarios about event horizons will be proven to be just fantasy.
The synthetic black hole picture recently constructed from different spectra is exactly what you expect from dense space Maxwell solution. It does not show the predicted aggregation disk as in fact the electric surface in 4D gets twisted. But this will take years until they grasp it....
and eventually he'd be falling faster than the << local >> speed of light.
A bit more precision due to the highly simplifying English language could sometimes help.
The lower light pulse is going slower than the higher light pulse, just as the lower NIST optical clock goes slower than the higher NIST optical clock.
It should be the other way round because gravity at the lower clock position squeezes the orbit.
so E and B are zero.
This would, imply that the photon at a certain point in space/time has no energy at all....
When you understand the electron you understand mass. Then when you take the next steps you can understand electron capture and beta decay.
I'm not so sure about this. The electron is a special manifestation of charge. Inside the nucleus the mass associated with charge sometime doubles (neutron case). Without understanding how charge is generated you will not manage to understand the electron.
The picture of the photon being a sinus wave is wrong as there is no chance that E/B field are 0 at the same moment. This would imply that the energy is stored in a fantastic medium called ether that should exhibit its property absolutely symmetric to a wave. Better classic pictures show the E/B wave field with a 90^{o} offset (phase). Now it's up to you to find the true angle between E,B wave.
This clearly shows that the interaction strength depends on the particle mass: the heavier the particle, the stronger its interaction with the Higgs field.
This is exactly what the SO(4) strong force equation shows. Coupling depends on mass....
The decay to two photons indicates that the new particle is a boson with spin different from one.
Of course an excited proton doing one more rotation can only give up two photons. 2 are needed due to rotation symmetry , what others call pair production...
Let’s also show Jurg along the way of helping him to publish his model that there is no church of SM as he perceives it.
If you know people that worked in the field, then you would understand why I opened this thread. Today western! churches are (mostly) way more open and democratic an no longer under a totalitarian regime.
Physics as it is presented to the world today is in a very dangerous state. NIST already started to fudge many constants based on fringe SM models. A small circle of high priests decides what can be published.
People as THH spread FUD to defend the insanity of a claim that a prediction of a particle can be made without giving a mass. This implies that the Church can claim anything and post-event claim it's prediction.
We - the people that pay taxes - not the one with a fortune - were forced to spend CERN several billions for the Church's predication that the Higgs particle (- as we know now for a fake particle -) will have an energy of first > 1000GeV then 3500 ..7000 GeV. Now the claim it at 125GeV what is 560 fold of 7000GeV...
For the normal taxpayers this sounds like: Based on a wired religious believe of the SM Church we simply spoiled Billions.
PS:They certainly will not publish something that will end the carrier of a large number of their friends... This is "naked" illusion.
This is probably incorrect - we only have indicia of two values for Higgs particle mass deduced from di-hadron and di-photon decay channels and they probably have similar origin, like double value of Hubble constant: massive objects are surrounded by dark matter and it makes them heavier/more red shifted in average.
Of course it's incorrect as both values represent a proton with a different excitation structure!
That is not what I said. The 125GeV Higgs particle (that you deny) is evidenced in two completely different (independent) sets of observations that relate to different decays.
This is good example how the SM church tries to influence people.
1) Reduced the discussion to the one "125GeV Higgs particle" that fits the theory better, than the other (126.7GeV).
2) Try to explain that the other event is just a not yet fitting different decay of the better fitting one.
3) After the particle was not found between 3500..7000 GeV - the last collision energy upgrade request of CERN - declare the new particle, that already could be generated with the (40 year) old machine, being the search one...
4) Change all models (adding tons of higher order perturbations..) to make the energy fit with the model
But that time CERN/SM folks are really unlucky. They measure a real particle, a 5D rotating proton, what definitely never will fit with virtual particle math... (But 3 digits is enough for them to claim something to be real...)
Standard model analysis of expected decays and how much luminosity you need before Higgs was found
THH?! I Hope you understand the difference between luminosity and energy...
As I already said 126MeV was the CERN energy level of 40 years ago! What did they miss....
CERN did ask for more particle energy 7 TeV collision energy ( 50x needed for Higgs) not for more luminosity, when asking for money! In fact the large collider makes absolutely no sense and was the biggest waste of money ever.
That is not what I said. The 125GeV Higgs particle (that you deny) is evidenced in two completely different (independent) sets of observations that relate to different decays.
You again spread multiple FUD: There are 2 125GeV(126.7GeV) Higgs particles measured and not one. Both were never predicted by anybody at the found energy.
Fact is: I know the proton resonances CERN measures I do not deny them. The lower fake Higgs proton resonance is a strongly charged one and the higher is more neutral - mostly magnetic coupling. This are not different decays! This are two different interactions with a potential detector.
I find the blatant bias and misrepresentation here obvious and unhelpful.
I understand form this sentence that you agree with totalitarian systems stack-exchange maintains.
I expect politicians to use such rhetoric but not scientists. Are you claiming the TWO completely distinct LHC observations that are explained by a 126Mev Higgs (agreeing with the maths) are both conspiracy theories?
Are you aware that you spread absolute nonsense ?? In which paper did Higgs predict two particles?????
There was no and never will be any SM math that predicted two particles at 126MeV ! Now they try to fit the model (math) to the observation.
As I already said 126MeV was the CERN energy level of 40 years ago! What did they miss....
If the Higgs field mechanism proves correct (and why not, it is simpler for all mass to have the same ultimate origin as binding energy, than for some to be special "rest mass") then it is the solution you need, and therefore your statement is meaningless.
Exact: Your statement is meaningless as the Higgs mechanism obviously is not able to give a correct mass to any real particle.
It's time to concede that QED/QFT/QCD have no relation to Newton/Maxwell mechanics as they cannot deal with real & inertial mass. Any proper theory must be a continuation of Newton/Maxwell like GER is.
You might also consider that the correct method for anyone proposing alternate theories of physics is not physics stackexchange questions, but a research paper and a suitable journal.
I agree: Nobody should be allowed to question a fringe model (now a religious model of physics).
That's what stackexchange should be in your opinion. Just - Opus Dei like - teaching ground for physics novices...
You must have some definition of physics I don't understand. For me, it is finding the simplest and most complete model to predict the behaviour of the world.
Your world must be a very screwed up one as it exists only in a tiny virtual space of e.g. produced by CERN - by experiments that only can show a limited view of the reality.
QED/QFT/QCD can obviously not reproduce the world as our world behaves like Newton/Maxwell/Einstein found a long time ago and is not virtual.
It's time to concede that QED/QFT/QCD have no relation to Newton/Maxwell mechanics as they cannot deal with mass. Any proper theory must be a continuation of Newton/Maxwell like GER is.
Until year 10000 when QED/QFT/QCD eventually claims to deal with mass, I myself and everybody with a grasp of reality will call QED/QFT/QCD a fringe model based on a screwed up thinking - or just on ignorance of reality (reality = all EM & mechanical forces) .
Also I added an idea that confined fotons give rise to gravity. see paper2 link in the post above.
The question is how gravity is defined. I think you show how a photon adds EM mass.
The Dirac equation by definition only works with linear (energy) square (1/r^{2}) potentials. This is halve of EM. A constant external field has been added already a long way back.
What you show looks like Mills non radiation condition with cutoffs at resonant radii in the form of x*2*π or X*r. At these radii no spherical harmonics with outgoing radial components do exist hence the product with an potential vanishes.
We should try to fit 1/r^{3} interaction into the model. First step - like Mills does. Calculate classic value then add magnetic correction terms.
A true full solution will connect (1/r^{2}) potentials with (1/r^{3}) "potentials" by the Biot-Savart Operator that is defined around a mediating virtual charge. (True "Em mass" - "Em mass" interaction with a circular solution)
Your posts imply that there is a coordinated effort to avoid the discussion of certain topics. On the years I have been researching controversial claims I have seen this argued many times by those who come with new, radical approaches. However, there's an old saying that tells one has no need to attribute to malice something that is better explained by stupidity.
No: I only try to work against a totalitarian systems. An open system would give e.g. 2,3 keywords ( in the comment) why they reject something.
This site does the worst possible as it points on page where the users can develop their own fantasy when reading a catalogue of reasons.
You show a pseudoskeptical ignorance of the many successes of Yang-Mills QFT. You pick the one thing that cannot be related (mass) and therefore dismiss the theory when it predicts all the structure, and with a very few free independent paraemeters, e.g. rest masses an coupling constants, predicts everything.
All basic and exact physics (Newton mechanics & EM theory ) we know deals with mass.
Due to your answer I can only make one conclusion : You are an adept of fringe science, that has no relation to classic physics. Fringe because you claim mass is not important at all.
The structure of a so called virtual particle universe QED/QFT/QCD e.g. CERN claims to see in experiments that are gauged by applying the very same model (s) ( QED/QFT/QCD) for such a detection is a self fulfilling prediction only.
If you ( QED/QFT/QCD) can give no relation between proton mass (and the undoubtable quarks...) , magnetic moment and charge radius then QED/QFT/QCD is a phantasy born ins screwed up minds.
I too can invent a phantasy theory that produces an other fantasy I predict if a use a measurement that guarantees the fantasy will occur.
Just to remind you: Group and operator based math is = a single prediction and mathematically not powerful enough to solve the stateful particle - particle interaction. Thus by basic induction on structural logic QED/QFT/QCD will never ever find a solution to explain mass unless they include a mediating part into their formalism.
All mass is "talking" to other mass as all EM fields to interact as soon as a mediator is involved, what QED/QFT/QCD exclude. They just try to change the weights (Feynman loops) of a field based on other fields with no states involved!
CERN claims to have found a so called Higgs particle. The mass should have been > 3TeV that's why CERN (we all..) invested more billions into an upgrade to find it. Now the claim a (simple to calculate) proton resonance around 126GeV to be a predicted particle... This at an energy they could produce already about 40 years ago ...
Of course there is no simple proof/disproof for such a fringe claim as the gravitational interaction of such a Higgs never will be possible to measure.
Stackexchange is a site that "as claimed on the paper" allows you to ask questions and to answer questions - of others - about physics.
But to do so you need first to show that you are a follower of the standard physics models. Thus, as a beginner, you cannot ask questions.
This style of indoctrination is a common tactic to ensure that only the "same" people meet the same.
It is contrary to an open eduction process and an open society.
True progress is only possible if we discuss all possible solutions - Killing a discussion without giving a reason - see above - is only possible in totalitarian system.
This was the link where stefan posted a solution that shows that QED is incomplete.
https://physics.stackexchange.…s-argument-link-em-and-qm
That is what you get today: