Re: Extension of the Equivalence Principle to include the EM Field
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 22, 11:35 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 22, 10:06 am, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 22, 6:03 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem resolves to this, that a material body of mass m is
composed entirely of electromagnetic masses, and because of this, it
is the latter equivalence that takes precendence over the former, i,e,
that wrt the perspective of the point charge itself, it is impossible
for it to distinguish between a gravitational and an electromagnetic
force.
http://www.soapplant.com/images/wacko-lg.gif
Compare the trajectories of the charged point particle of mass "m" in
a gravitational vs. electromagnetic field.
I didn't expect you in particular to comprehend the argument. If a
point charge or (quanta of charge) in accelerated motion percieves a
gravitational field acting on all other point charges in the universe,
which follows from the equivalence principle "according to Einstien",
then it follows that it isn't the inertial mass per se that is related
to the developement of this fictious gravitational field. Rather this
field acts on all things to which a relative position in space can be
ascribed. This is not therefore a gravitational field of the sort
generated by a graviting body such as the Earth, unless this field
also acts on the metric itself rather than on simply those things
positioned within it.
Thus by inverting the argument, a true equivalence of these
gravitational fields would require the Earths gravitational field to
act on the electromagnetic charge of the particle and the inertial
mass charge on equal footing, or rather on the particle per se,
irrespective of its properties. Because of this, it is imperative that
a correct metrical theory be based not upon the interial mass of the
objects in space, but upon the quality of the object that is
quantifiable only as the "number of fundamental particles within it".
In the example that I mentioned, a point charge accelerating in an E
field will percieve a uniform gravitational field to act on all other
particles in the universe. The source of this field is however
ultimately the E field accelerating the point charge, it being the
only change made to the system before the gravitational field
appeared. If then we place another point charge of the same sign near
the first, and it is also affected by the source of the E field, then
wrt the first charge, the second charge is simply experiencing a
gravitational field of lesser magnitude than the field experienced by
the distant stars. In this way the E field can be transformed to a G
field, or rather, it necessarily does so.
It is clear the earth acts predictably on atoms and neutrons.
It is not so clear the earth acts predictably on electrons
and positrons.
Your quote from Einstein's Nobel lecture:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
always leaves me wondering if it would ever occur to him
to swap the positon of the cart and the horse to see if
things didn't work out a little better for
unificatation of electrodynamics and gravity.
I tend to think he may have been too far down
the road to a ~Theory of invariants~ to back up
and consider how a gravitational/inertial
mechanism should behave.
<< Einstein published his theory of
gravitation, or general theory of relativity,
in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of
beliefs, was established. It was not until
1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force
(known as Van der Waals' dispersion force
or the 'London force') that causes gas
molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force
is always attractive and operates between
electrically neutral molecules
What a different story might have been told<<
if London's insight had come a few decades
earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced
by a century instead of being bogged in a
mire of metaphysics. >>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp
Sue...
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: how does a coherent standing wave light still propagate at a speed c++?
- Next by Date: Re: GR1916, available online.
- Previous by thread: Re: Extension of the Equivalence Principle to include the EM Field
- Next by thread: Re: Extension of the Equivalence Principle to include the EM Field
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
