Posts by uncertainH

    This discussion reminded me of an article by Werner Hofer I read a while ago which you can find here:


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.00227.pdf



    I revisit the Bohr-Einstein controversy of 1935. Bohr’s assertion that there are no causes in atomic
    scale systems is, as a closer analysis reveals, not in line with the Copenhagen interpretation since it
    would contain a statement about reality. What Bohr should have written is that there are no causes
    in mathematics, which is universally acknowledged. The law of causality requires physical effects
    to be due to physical causes. For this reason any theoretical model which replaces physical causes
    by mathematical objects is creationism, that is, it creates physical objects out of mathematical
    elements. I show that this is the case for most of quantum mechanics

    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.

    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.

    Hi, I'm new to the forum but have been watching for a while and trying to delve into GUTCP lately so I'll just jump in with both feet. I think a big issue is best summed up by:

    velocity means that it is correct to consider flows that crosses without interaction. Quite a mystery if you ask me.

    How can the great circle have a mass that sums to the mass of the electron?


    It's hard to accept 2 loops of mass crashing into each other and charges repulsing each other being possible and at the same time not flying apart. One thing that I think might be key is that, in the theory, mass is more of an emergent phenomenon as a result of electromagnetic energy being trapped in the closed geometry of the 2D shell. He calls the orbitsphere a discontinuity in spacetime and that during particle production spacetime curves and contracts in conjunction with the event. The total energy of the particle allows the derivation of mass in the lab frame. When describing the actual current loops he is careful to use the words charge\mass. Whether this is correct or not is another story but allowing that assumption and carrying on seems to bring some interesting results



    I have though about this question some more, It is nicely summarized in a math stack exchange question, please upvote it if you find it interesting so that it have a better chance of getting answered. Or if you are a wizard answer it yourself.

    https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2316201/453800?sgp=2


    And Stefan thanks for posting that question, I wish I could answer it but I can't. I would imagine that there would be many solutions for the functions. I think Mills adds in further boundary conditions on the precessing secondary axis?