Temperature is strictly a manifestation of the induced eddy-currents, for one. Inertia is most likely a counter EMF induced in these charge fields as a direct result of any departure from equilibrium. Rest mass is the manifestation of this effect. This is an effect of the second order, a Grad E.
a
Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. As you know, which of these depends upon the magnitude of energy of the 'molecules' relative to the strength of the Van Der Waal field effect. As you also know, QM interprets matter as wavicles, I suspect that its some sort of standing wave patterns but...
I'm glad to see that you've sill learned nothing about physics in spite of all the ridicule of Franz. To you the earth is still flat and beyond the edges there still be dragons!
It's wonderful to find a man who finds such strength in his faith!
?? Being an etherist, I would attribute inertia to a Higgs-like field with both EM and QCD effects involved. I think I have shown you this before for the rest mass of an electron is due to an interaction with quantum vacuum charge = sqrt(hbar*c) in a certain volume of space (ether).
m_e = e*sqrt(hbar*c)/(w_C^2 Vol)
In CGS units. w_C being electron compton frequency and the volume is of the order of electron compton wavelength cubed.
Well, I was trying to think of a single name for the property but at the elementary fundamental level, matter doesn't seem to have this property. Only has it in the aggregate.
For me, it is more like branes. All due to quantum vacuum and relativistic effects on point entities interacting. Have you had a look yet at Schiller's strand model of knots and tangles?
And QCD is what? Where gravity & inertia are likely second order effects, QCD or strong force is likely a third order effect. Any second order suppresses direction (sign) resulting in unidirectional force (towards the source) this would not.be so for effects of the third order...
As for 'fields' if one is to move towards unification & simplification one should not assign processes to totally different things. E, B, G, strong force, ...etc. are properties of underlying something (single) call it what you want, aether would respect history. Just like pressure, temperature, density, ...etc. are simply different properties of a single gas.
My problem Fred is I don't think in terms of irrational dimensions (and never will) and the EM of cgs is totally screwed up with'em. Just like you won't see me scaling to so-called natural units. It totally skews things, hiding many critical pieces of information that are necessary in understanding natures puzzle. I don't know why you persist, you can't get it straight without understanding how permittivity (density) and permeability (compressibility) factor in. You can't get thar for where you're at. Absolute temperature for example, is strictly defined in SI as Kelvin. There is no cgs equivalent. That make thermal-electric effects difficult from an understanding perspective.
Right, just like Feynman just loved to point out that at the atomic level nothing is 'hard', or every touches. The closest you come is the neutronium state.
k
I will be looking into this, sounds like a follow-on of Kelvin's work...
To me it says something about H. The fact that it (H) can be seen as the curl of a vector says something about the vector field H.
Looking at the scalar potential, the divergence of the gradient of the potential indicates the sources of the field. My understanding is that curl of a gradient of a scalar is always zero. That is the key. That is why you can adjust a field by a guage and all of the parameters that are curl-like are unaffected. So one "type" of field is the type that is a gradient of a scalar potential. But the magnetic field is not that type. It is such that it can be represented by the curl of some vector. That says something about its geometry to me.
For example imagine a vector field that is radially diverging from some point. Imagine another that is like the collection of velocity vectors on a merry go round surface. The former can possibly be represented as the gradient of a scalar an so an "energy" of a sort can be defined. But the latter cannot. It can however be represented by a kind of vector that points perpendicuar to the cyclone. You can sort of tell by looking at the field if it is represented by a bunch of arrows.
It seems that the notion of rotation is underneath it all. A force field that has rotation (or curl) will not allow one to define an energy because a particle under its influence could accelerate until it returned to its original location now going faster and begin another circumnavigation again picking up speed. So energy is not conserved. That is why the curl is not really a vector but a tensor. If you look for example at four dimensions the "cyclone" of the vectors are always in a plane but a plane in three space has a vector perpendicular to it. But in four space there are really two perpendicular vectors for every pair of axis.
I think these things have topological implications but I am not able to represent them. For example if you look at a sphere and imagine a single source at the north pole then eventually the radiating lines will form a south pole. But not on a plane. Same with the curl. If there is the center of a cyclone on a sphere then there will be another center somewhere else. But not on a plane.
At some fundamental level you can look at two vectors that are not colinear and see that they now have two kinds of things based on their angular separation. One is the dot product and the other is the cross product. The dot product is ABCos(theta) the cross is ABSin(Theta). That is there magnitudes. But only one is a scalar. The other is a vector. Why? Because its an area? Doesn't make sense. It has something to do with area though. Dot product is really a length and cross an area of a paralelegram. But one is seen as having direction. AdotB =3D BdotA but AcrossB !=3D BcrossA. Why? commutativity becomes involved as it does in Riemanian curvature.
I haven't got a clue fundamentally. It just seems that there are these two aspects to vector fields. Divergence and curl and in order to have a curl at all the vectors need to be not colinear. They need area.
The interesting thing is that if a vector field has a curl then it cannot be the gradient of a scalar.
The utility of the scalar potential is that it is the field, a gradient of which, is the force field. But a vector potential? It does not result in a concept like energy.
I think that orientability might have something to do with it. To what extend are vector fields that are gradients of scalars orientable vs the extend to which vector fields that are the curl of some vector are orientable. It seems that curl is kind of a planar concept where as divergence can be in all directions outward. So the divergence is more like a ball than a disc and the disc can be oriented (or at least its plane defined by its perpendiculars). The ball of the divergence cannot be oriented.
Sorry, but I do believe they are all waiting on you. I suspect there a quite a few folks here that would know how to setup a div E = rho experiment using matter. But I'll be danged if we know how to do it without matter. If you could please enlighten us as to how to accomplish that, we would be forever grateful. TIA
Guys: It just occurred to me that when even tiny subatomic masses "approach" 'c', that according to Einstein (Ha!), the energy that was needed to get that particle to such velocity had to be nearly infinite, regardless of how small the at rest mass of the particle is. Take that same particle times the zillion, zillion that are flying through space all the time, and the total energy would have to be at least a zillion times infinite (Ha!) to have gotten those particles up-to-speed! What the latter implies is: I've found yet another reason that Einstein's SR is patently and absurdly WRONG!! One "infinite" energy is all that there is, and that would be used up by just a few high speed particles (based on the velocities observed)! =97 NoEinstein =97
Well, it isn't obscure except in pop-sci accounts which tend to focus on E and B (or H). However, A has a problem for magnetic monopoles: that field can't be elegantly constructed around a monopole. Hence theorists imagine an ugly, rope like "tail" of tangled A field ending in a monopole, or between one and another. Glib accounts of the cuteness or desirability of monopoles for "symmetry" tend to overlook this, just like glib accounts of how consistent physics is overlook the ugly contrivances of renormalization, of pretend explanations like decoherence for wave-function collapse, etc. BTW, I see no need for monopoles for symmetry, once we realize that B field is just a velocity-dependent E field. I think that attraction is more a semantic illusion than something really warranted.
Dear Helmut: Thanks so much for seeing that SIMPLE clear thinking can easily NIX complex, foggy thinking! You have just confirmed that SR is a fallen theory! =97 NoEinstein =97
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.