Customer Discussions > Science forum

Intertial & Non-Intertial Frames


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-209 of 209 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 11:18:11 AM PDT
Yes.

And like other gods whom we shall not name, he seems to have made one or two blunders along the way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 12:02:58 PM PDT
Good one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 12:30:48 PM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
http://www.cnrs-orleans.fr/osuc/conf/files/ecole/Djouadi.pdf

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 10:24:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 9:37:43 AM PDT
D. Colasante says:
edit: You might save time by skipping to my summary on 7/3/12.

tk, Do you think Mach would settle for half a victory? Here's how:

1. Forget about mass. That's an implication of gravitation, which can occur in isolation (an action on the manifold, not an interaction between particles.)
2. Ignore electric charge. "Positive" or "negative" is a local (internal) matter [1].
3. Focus on electric interaction. Interaction is what Mach's principle was made for.
4. Forget about repulsion. This interaction is already well modeled by the "medicine ball" analogy.
5. Focus on electric attraction. That's where things really reek in the standard model anyway.

I always wait with bated breath for a pop-sci production like NOVA - The Elegant Universe to offer its explanation of attraction and I always end up LOL. They get stuck because they *insist* on identical mechanisms for both attraction and repulsion, which is partly true but awkwardly interpreted. A Phyxed model arises by allowing that a pair of like charges in isolation repel each other, while a system of two unlike charges just sit on their tiny butts and ignore each other [2]!

A pair of like particles (like electrons) repel by exchanging photons [3]. One side throws the medicine ball, recoiling backward. The other side receives it, inheriting its momentum. So far, so good.

Where the model gets silly is with attraction. Brian Greene showed two copies of himself (should have been mirror images) standing on a beach, tossing a glowing baseball (a photon) back and forth, while they mysteriously slide *together*, leaving a trail in the sand![4] What?!? Snooping around physics sites, it gets worse. Explanations have the ball representing virtual particles, traveling backward in time and carrying "negative momentum". Life doesn't have to be so complicated.

In a universe populated with lots of particles (not just two), unlike charges don't have to interact with *each other* at all to experience "attraction". They can instead be repelled by all their like brethren (behind them) so they are pushed together in a Machian sense. Repulsion is the medicine ball between particles. Attraction is medicine balls hitting behind particles, where none is being exchanged in between. For attraction, the pair of Brian Greens should have been facing away from each other, backing together as they exchanged photons with still other, more distant (from the center of the first pair), Brian Greenes.

To illustrate how spin fits in. Imagine (or draw) the spinning propellers of two fans side by side facing you. What they each do to the air is independent (gravity) but the fields can coalesce. If they have like spins (signs), if you extend the blades, they hit and recoil (one adjacent blade rotates up while the other is headed down). If they have unlike spins (one clockwise and one counter) and the angular velocities are equal (quantized) the blades can intermesh quite compatibly like two gears, neither disturbing the other. It is Machian, outside repulsions, that push the the fans together. Since both repulsion and attraction are implemented by *push*, there is no need to contrive a *pull* force.

[1] The same universal background cannot imbue one particle with positive charge and another with negative. It always goes back to something different within the particle (chronaxial spin direction). I believe this is why Mach ignored electric charge in preference to mass charge. Plus, at that time, by Newton's 3rd Law, he errantly believed gravity to be an interaction.
[2] Except for their feeble gravitation, which would curve their geodesic, drawing them together.
[3] Of course, I model "remote collisions" through pinholes (photo-induced wormholes) but it works the same way.
[4] Click "play", drag the video index button (below picture) forward to the 3 min. mark and view 90 seconds of the clip here:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=brian+greene+elegant+universe&view=detail&mid=3D1B69D54EE98923C85A3D1B69D54EE98923C85A&first=101

edits: minor

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 11:58:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 7:53:10 AM PDT
D. Colasante says:
Having pulled a Machian rabbit out of my hat, for my next trick, I shall attempt to make it disappear (bit by painful bit).

A repulsion-only model for electric interaction is simpler than a repulsion-attraction model but there are some nagging questions:

How is it that repulsion and attraction both seem to exactly follow the inverse square law with equal field strength though they are rather differently produced?

Wouldn't like charges, while repelling away from each other (medicine ball style) also be repelled *toward* each other in a Machian sense, by the rest of the universe? It's a problem to ignore Mach for like charges and invoke him for unlike charges.

Is this the simplest repulsion-only model possible? What if we removed half the particles in the universe (perhaps just those far away)? What about 75%? If we isolate a pair of unlike charges in a metal sphere, the very tiny bit of sphere mass takes the place of the entire Machian universe! If the charge pair is oriented along a horizontal line, we might then remove the top and bottom thirds of the metal sphere as contributing mostly balanced perpendicular repulsions. How far can this go?

Let's go all the way to a universe with just two particles separated on a single (curved) dimension yet, still invoke Mach!

Draw a circle having a short chord near the top. Label the ends of the chord "A" and "B". The "short arc" AB is a geodesic, and gets all the fanfare in physics. If you lived on the circle at A and wanted to get to B, you'd take the geodesic. But there is another path, for lack of a term (that I am aware of), call it the "contradesic", the "long arc" AB.

Now, if you are a point person living at A on that circle, and you have a girlfriend at B, what a happy day it is if I open a shortcut, the chord AB. It's just a wormhole of the 1-D variety but hey, you're a point person! But here's *the* important, but always overlooked, aspect of the shortcut. It is an equally valid shortcut for either the geodesic OR the contradesic. If Feynman was around, he might say the wormhole represents the summation of all possible paths. But I don't know how he does his sums.

Why bother with a contradesic? Because in considering it to model a positively curved space we come to the realization that attraction and repulsion are relative. Attraction on the geodesic is repulsion on the contradesic and vice versa! Attraction and repulsion are two aspects of the same phenomenon and they can *both* be implemented through a *single* shortcut.

We now extend the definition of "geodesic" to include "the direction over which *like* electric charges interact" and we extend "contradesic" to include "the direction over which *unlike* electric charges interact". In both cases, the interaction uses the shortcut, it's just a matter of how they are facing when they use it. The latter case is where Mach finally gets his due. Repulsion over the contradesic is attraction on the geodesic.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 12:09:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 8:30:02 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
The more astute among you may note that the circle drawn for my last post, could represent the x-axis of positively curved space (think Riemann) at a given moment. You will object that movement on the circle or across the shortcut chord would represent instantaneous travel, a no-no.

I commend you for a correct observation and offer a few comments and adjustments. I described the chord as a 1-D wormhole with a 0-D opening, only suitable for tangent contact (possibly point particle transit). This *does* represent instant communication, and would find limited use: entanglement, quantum tunneling, electron orbital transition and the like. I call such tunnels "spinholes" (SPatially-INterconnecting wormHOLES) and will leave it at that.

To address light-like intervals, the tunnel occurs over a tangent rather than a chord. I call this a "pinhole" (Photo-INduced wormHOLE) but you call it a "photon". To see it, begin again with a circle having a chord near the top. Now draw a smaller circle, concentric with the first and tangent to the chord (at its midpoint).

The inner circle represents the x-axis at time (T1) and the outer circle represents the expanded x-axis (as per Hubble) at a later time (T2). The center of the circles is the Big Bang event, with radial distance representing the age of the universe (T2 older than T1). The tangent (semi-chord) from T1 to T2 represents a light-like interval. This is where a pinhole would occur, mediating an electric interaction such as light, attraction or repulsion. Here is a printable diagram showing arcs from the two circles (Click, "View and share related images" under the product photo at the link.) The dotted chord on T2 is new, used for calculating the light-like interval magnitude (think Pythagoras). (light-like interval)^2 = (dotted chord)^2 - (delta Time)^2 where dotted chord BC approximates its arc due to local flatness.

Posted on Jul 3, 2012 9:35:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 11:20:19 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
As I have constipated this thread with three *cheesy* posts in a row, here is your cathartic.

The simplest Machian system is a circular, 1-D universe containing two point particles, the minimum for "interaction". The circle means the particles act as their own background (over the long arc). To accommodate time, imagine the circle slowly expands. Elapsed time is the change in radius (say, during an interaction).

Interaction occurs over the light-like interval (a chord) connecting the two particles. "Like" charges are defined as those interacting with respect to the short arc. "Unlike" charges interact with respect to the long arc. In both cases, the interaction is repulsion. Repulsion on the long arc looks like attraction on the short arc. Physics considers this mediated by a "photon" passed between the particles, like a medicine ball across the interval. Since the interval is seen by all observers (it's invariant) to have *zero* extent, I instead consider the interaction to be "remote contact" and the chord a "pinhole" (photo-induced wormhole).

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 10:05:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 11:02:05 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
In honor of the USA's birthday, I brought a gift.

If you can grasp it, you will be one of the few to understand the mechanism of electric attraction!

Thinking Tool #14: To kick an electron in the butt, aim for its groin.

It won't appeal to everyone, just those with a burning desire to *know*. "Electron" is a reference to any true fermion (I exclude neutrinos as dark matter). A fermion is a spin ˝ particle, which means it requires 720 degrees for a complete rotation. This is consistent with spin in a 3-plane perpendicular to a temporal axis. A 3-plane compactifies two non-parallel 2-planes (sufficient to describe our volume). Two planes worth of rotation is 720 degrees.

Real observers can't experience the 720 degree vista of a point particle. Instead, we find:

*** An electron's "back" is 360 degrees (half way) around from its "front"! ***

So, a single geodesic in spacetime mediates both attraction and repulsion [1]. Brian Greene demonstrates this but without explanation [2]. "Like" fermions hit each other in the front and each recoils away. "Unlike" fermions use the SAME path to hit each other *in the back* and they recoil together! Front or back contact defines a pair as "like" or "unlike" electric charges.

Happy 4th!

[1] This uses only positive momentum and forward time, unlike the current theory of electric attraction.
[2] Click "play", drag the video index button forward to the 3 min. mark and view 90 seconds of the clip here:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=brian+greene+elegant+universe&view=detail&mid=3D1B69D54EE98923C85A3D1B69D54EE98923C85A&first=101

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 6:55:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 10, 2012 9:48:20 AM PDT
D. Colasante says:
JS (4/1/9) >> [Regarding pinholes (photo-induced wormholes)] Interesting idea! ... But the biggest problem which I see is how to explain an attractive force between a proton and electron. That will not be a simple elastic collision.

Actually, I think it is. See 7/3 or 7/4 above. Two ways of saying the same thing. Sorry it took so long.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Knowledge 1541 1 hour ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation part 2 2317 1 hour ago
1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun 134 1 hour ago
Hands up, all those who actually believe that the Antarctic is in danger of melting! 13 1 hour ago
97% of Climate Scientists say Global Warming is our Greatest Threat 417 2 hours ago
There has been no global warming in 18 years (as of August, 2014) 23 3 hours ago
Solar Freakin' Roadways 26 3 hours ago
Is there ANY Scientific case that an embryo is NOT a human being? 23 4 hours ago
Science, Intellectual-property, Know-how, Profit and Poverty 0 4 hours ago
was the moon landing real or fake, and why? 5174 5 hours ago
Science is corrupt: NAS members can `choose who will review their paper' 18 5 hours ago
Inherit the Wind 499 8 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  209
Initial post:  Jun 12, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions