Re: Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- From: srp2inc@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 07:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
On 23 mai, 15:53, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 23, 1:01 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:> On 23 mai, 00:14, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess I didn't express myself properly. My point was one can't
change m0 without also changing the shape of the electron. One has to
assume that the charge is a system with a finite diameter in order to
change m0. The limit of taking m0 to 0 is equivalent to setting the
diameter of the particle to infinity. The more spread out the charge
is, the smaller m0.
On paper maybe, but in physical reality, the m0 of the electron can't
be changed.
Correct. However, it can change into a particle which at rest is
a different shape. For example, one could postulate that the electron
at rest is a sphere with a radius of (Re), and a proton at rest is a
sphere of radius (Rp)=(Re)/sqrt(1836). Then, one can easily show with
electrostatic calculations that the rest mass of the proton is 1836
times the rest mass of the electron. The electromagnetic contribution
of the rest mass of a sphere with an electric charge of 1 electron is
inversely proportional to the square of the radius of that sphere.
Defining the electron or the proton as a sphere is fine for
calculation
purposes, but it must be kept in mind that in physical reality, it is
more than doubtful that it would take this sort of mathematically
ideal shape. My own conclusions, in line with de Broglie's hypothesis
on the possible internal dynamic structure of the photon is that at
the fundamental level, the energy making up any elementary
electromagnetic particle (photon, electron) can only be in standing
motion locally if it is to display at all electromagnetic properties.
As for protons (and neutrons), it has been confirmed in the 1960's
that they are not elementary, but made up of 3 scatterable
sub-particles, themselves elementary and also electromagnetic
(displaying charge, thus also undissociable magnetic properties),
the up and down quarks.
In the picture of equations I showed you, you will find the
dynamic equations describing them also. As for their
local motion and that of their carrying energy making up the
volume and relativistic mass of the proton (and neutron),
this is too complex to explain without extensive setting
up, but is explained in my the complete work.
At least, this is what I found, which again gives all the
right answers matching with observation.
If one really needed a "nonquantum mechanical" model of different
types of particles, one possibility is to represent each type of
particle at rest as an object with a certain size, shape, and charge.
Then taking the limit of the rest mass m0 is merely the process of
changing one type of particle to the other.
Agreement.
The size of the object
gives you m0 and the general shape gives you the differential
scattering cross sections. Since like charges repel, one has to assume
some nonelectromagnetic forces holding the particle together at that
shape.
In the 3-spaces model, this issue is solved by introducing a new
expanded space geometry.
The shape becomes a manifestation of these nonelectromagnetic
forces. SR is incorporated by choosing only forces that produce a
Lorentz contraction on the shape.
Unfortunately, SR has not yet been upgraded to account for the proven
existence of up and down quarks inside nucleons. Until this is done,
some major issues will remain unresolved, such as the supposedly
"anomalous" acceleration towards the sun of both Pioneer 10 and 11
spacecrafts.
I am not presenting this model as a real alternative to quantum
mechanics |:-) Obviously, it doesn't explain diffraction and other
wave properties of these "particles." Furthermore, this type of model
is highly redundant. One has to choose a shape that is consistent with
whatever symmetries the particle exhibits in experiments.
Agreement.
And when you
have such a shape, it is seldom unique. A cubic particle would have
the same type of cross sections as a tetrahedral particle. Yet another
problem is that the particle spectrum does not vary continuously from
one to another in real life. So taking the limit still doesn't
correspond to a physically reasonable picture.
My analysis led me to the conclusion that their local shape is
fluctuating
in the manner that is expressed in the equations I showed you, which
is an expression of de Broglie's hypothesis on the possible internal
structure of photons. Totally Maxwell compliant.
I am using this model to demonstrate what may be missing in the
Lorentz model of the electron. It was a completely dynamic model. It
did not separate the symmetries of the electron from the coupling
strengths of the electron. It did not separate the symmetries of the
electron from the rest mass of the electron. Because his model fixed
everything about the electron, it wasn't robust. It happened to have
the one correct symmetry, which was the Lorentz invariance. Einstein
raised the Lorentz invariance to a universal law.
Do you have any math or description of your conclusions ?
Therefore, Lorentz made an ad hoc model of
an electron which at rest was a spherical shell of charge with a
finite (i.e., nonzero) diameter.
Clean mathematical procedure. I did the same.
Einstein's main contribution is showing that this type of
procedure isn't as clean as it first appears. The main problem is that
whatever models one comes up with this "clean" approach is
"redundant." "Redundant" isn't clean because it has a lot of little
fuzzy things sticking out.
My assumption was that this volume of energy was oscillating
electromagnetically at the frequency determined by the amount
of energy.
What do you mean by this volume of energy is oscillating? The
volume is oscillating, the energy is oscillating, the field is
oscillating, some of all of the above?
All of the above. As expressed by the formulation of the equations.
There is proof that even macroscopic magnetic fields are oscillating
at some frequency. If it can be shown at the macro level, there is no
way that this would not be the case at the fundamental level.
I conducted an experiment with coinciding poles magnets that proves
exactly that. Explained in pages 1 to 7 of this paper:
http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/on_the_inverse_cube_magnetostatic_interaction.pdf
Have you gone through the literature on quantum field theory?
Yes.
I think many of your assumptions may already be there.
Somewhat, but in my model, no energy is created from zero point
vacuum. No pairs appearing out of nowhere. In my model,
and in physical reality apparently, pairs are created when photons
of energy 1.022 MeV or more destabilize as they graze other
particles.
Not in my model. Energy can be at rest even when standing.What?
Sorry, typo. I meant "cannot be at rest" even when standing.
Except that it is impossible for electromagnetic energy to go to rest
as a sphere. It has to move, even internally if it is to have a
frequency at all, and we know that all electromagnetic enery have
frequencies.
Why does "energy" have to move, and what does it mean if "energy"
moves?
Difficult to fully explain without rather extensive setting up. But
summarily put, let's say we start with kinetic energy.
Let's say you fire a bullet from a gun. You just communicated
to the bullet some amount of kinetic energy causing the bullet
to move (kinetic energy => motion) . When the bullet hits
some obstacle, the kinetic energy is not lost. Most of it
transfers to surrounding material, heating it up (heat is
local vibration (motion) of electronic clouds in solid materials
and increase in the velocities (more motion) of isolated
molecules in gaseous materials (so transfered kinetic energy
still => motion).
Some of the energy may even escape as a visible flash
of light at the impact location, (photons) which from the
get go are electromagnetic in nature, but made up
exclusively of some of the kinetic energy that was transfered
from the incoming bullet.
Past research has shown that all the energy released from
a striking bullet can be accounted for by the sum of heat
transfer plus radiation emission.
So now we have photons moving at the speed of light
and that display electromagnetic properties. De Broglie
suggested a largely disregarded hypothesis on a
possible dynamic internal structure of moving photons
that can explain localized electromagnetism in perfect
harmony with Maxwell's theory. This hypothesis makes
it impossible for energy not to be moving within this
internal structure.
A static electromagnetic field doesn't have to move or even
change.
From superficial observation, apparently. A rotating fan
may also appear as a static disc of light from certain
angles. But closer analysis may also reveal that it is
in fact made up of a few narrow blades moving rather
fast.
Of course, you may be rediscovering zero point energy.
You should look into stochastic electrodynamics.
Zero point energy is not required.
...Marmet...
I read a little on Marmet's webpage. I even had a short
discussion with him regarding both relativity and his tired light
theory.
You did ? I learned of his work only after he passed away,
so I never discussed with him.
I am afraid we both got a little terse with each other.
Unfortunate.
If you think it is appropriate, I can review some of the things
he is mistaken about.
Aren't we all mistaken or in disagreement about some stuff or
other. But only one item of his work really caught my attention.
What caught my attention is the first part of this paper
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
From equation 1 to equation 26, he coherently describes
something that no one before him has understood.
This is the key to defining discrete electric and magnetic
fields for permanently localized electromagnetic particles.
My opinion of him isn't very high. That isn't name calling, is it?
No it isn't. It's being honest.
Have a nice day.
André Michaud
.
- References:
- de broglie wave velocity
- From: richardskaa
- Re: de broglie wave velocity
- From: srp2inc
- Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- From: Darwin123
- Re: Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- From: srp2inc
- Re: Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- From: Darwin123
- Re: Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- From: srp2inc
- Re: Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- From: Darwin123
- de broglie wave velocity
- Prev by Date: "The Einstein Hoax"
- Next by Date: This was clearly a Martian nerve cell
- Previous by thread: Re: Limit As v Approaches c is Indeterminate Unless m0(v) is Defined
- Next by thread: Re: de broglie wave velocity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
