Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Guest · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Question on good old inertia...

Hi everyone,

Just got a question that>s been on my mind and still troubling me...
I>m reading an excellent book at the moment "Symmetry and the
beautiful universe" by L. Lederman & C. Hill. on p118: "Although we>ll
never really know why there is inertia, we must certainly notice that
there is inertia.". I>m not convinced about Mach>s principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
and Haisch&Rueda>s hypothesis seems to me more interesting:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061

Given our somewhat lack of understanding of how matter interacts with
the quantum vacuum, is there anything wrong in thinking that the
amount of resistance to change in velocity of an object is simply some
kind of reaction force between matter of the object and the local
quantum vacuum during acceleration? So instead of "...inertia
originates in a kind of interaction between bodies..." [Einstein] it
is really the object>s matter during application of the force
"grabbing hold" of the quantum vacuum during acceleration which we
perceive as the resistance or inertia. Just trying to visualise the
physics, nothing concrete in all this, I>m interested in what others
have thought of all this?

Cheers, Paul.
http://wizlab.com/marine/

Uncle Al · Guest

captpaul101@hotmail.com wrote:
[[Mod. note -- excess quoted text trimmed. -- jt]]
[quote]Just got a question that>s been on my mind and still troubling me...
I>m reading an excellent book at the moment "Symmetry and the
beautiful universe" by L. Lederman & C. Hill. on p118: "Although we>ll
never really know why there is inertia, we must certainly notice that
there is inertia.". I>m not convinced about Mach>s principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
and Haisch&Rueda>s hypothesis seems to me more interesting:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061

Given our somewhat lack of understanding of how matter interacts with
the quantum vacuum, is there anything wrong in thinking that the
amount of resistance to change in velocity of an object is simply some
kind of reaction force between matter of the object and the local
quantum vacuum during acceleration? So instead of "...inertia
originates in a kind of interaction between bodies..." [Einstein] it
is really the object>s matter during application of the force
"grabbing hold" of the quantum vacuum during acceleration which we
perceive as the resistance or inertia. Just trying to visualise the
physics, nothing concrete in all this, I>m interested in what others
have thought of all this?
[/quote]
Stochastic electrodynamics cannot evolve the Schrodinger equation or
the Dirac formalism to date. It offers no alternatives. It makes no
new testable predictions. Claimed accelerated charge interactions
with the vacuum background have been strenuously criticized by Unruh.
This is a bad thing given that the Davies-Unruh effect is SED>s
mechanism for originating inertia.

SED, unless a testable empiricial connection appears, is only better
than string theory for being smaller.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Phillip Helbig---remove C · Guest

In article
<164ae77d-8cab-470d-a2e1-9e0039b5b9c3@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
captpaul101@hotmail.com writes:

[quote]and Haisch&Rueda>s hypothesis seems to me more interesting:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061

Given our somewhat lack of understanding of how matter interacts with
the quantum vacuum, is there anything wrong in thinking that the
amount of resistance to change in velocity of an object is simply some
kind of reaction force between matter of the object and the local
quantum vacuum during acceleration?
[/quote]
I remember seeing this idea several years ago (not sure if it was the
same authors).

I think we need to undertand zero-point fluctuations in the vacuum
first.

There are people who think that they are basically not there, for
example Curt Michel in an article in the Astrophysical Journal (I can
dig out the reference if anyone needs it). Others, like Weinberg, seem
to take them as more or less established. Weinberg seems to believe
that these quantum-mechanical fluctuations which show up as a
cosmological constant in cosmology are ALMOST cancelled by a "more
basic" (negative) cosmological constant, resulting in the observed small
(from the point of view of particle physics) value of the cosmological
constant.

The naive quantum-mechanical calculation results in a cosmological
constant many orders of magnitude above strong upper limits from
cosmology. Usually, when anything is off by that much, one is at least
sceptical. Lev Landau said "Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in
doubt." but that appears to apply to particle physicists in this case.

Weinberg>s cancellation theory seems like an epicycle, but it could make
sense, especially since he presents anthropic arguments to indicate that
the observed value is not unexpected. (See the reference below and
references in it.)

My gut feeling is with Weinberg, if only because I am more familiar with
him and his work. However, if Michel can, in a well respected refereed
journal, state that it is wrong to believe that the Casimir effect
demonstrates the reality of zero-point fluctuations, then either there
is a real controversy or something slipped by the referees which
shouldn>t have.

@ARTICLE {HMartelSW98a,
AUTHOR = "Hugo Martel and Paul R. Shapiro and
Steven Weinberg",
TITLE = "Likely Values of the Cosmological Constant",
JOURNAL = APJ,
YEAR = "1998",
VOLUME = "492",
NUMBER = "1",
PAGES = "29",
MONTH = jan
}

Guest

On Oct 15, 6:30 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]
Stochastic electrodynamics cannot evolve the Schrodinger equation or
the Dirac formalism to date. It offers no alternatives. It makes no
new testable predictions. Claimed accelerated charge interactions
with the vacuum background have been strenuously criticized by Unruh.
This is a bad thing given that the Davies-Unruh effect is SED>s
mechanism for originating inertia.

SED, unless a testable empiricial connection appears, is only better
than string theory for being smaller.
[/quote]
There are some problems with SED working against their hypothesis
however
their idea has some merit, needs further study... Any thoughts on the
following
paper? "On the electromagnetic origin of inertia and inertial mass"

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0284

Are there any theories in the pipeworks that attempt to explain the
mass difference between
the electron and muon? Both particles have same charge but the muon is
207 times more
massive compared to the electron, any ideas what>s going here?

Cheers, Paul.
http://wizlab.com/marine

Guest

[quote]Are there any theories in the pipeworks that attempt to explain the
mass difference between
the electron and muon? Both particles have same charge but the muon is
207 times more
massive compared to the electron, any ideas what>s going here?
[/quote]
Actually bumped into the Koide formula which comes up with a very
interesting
equation relating the mass of the electron, muon and tau particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0505220

What an amazing result! Just to make sure I plugged the numbers in the
calculator
and indeed Q = 2/3. Back to arXiv better brushup on Koide related
papers...

Cheers, Paul.
http://wizlab.com/marine

Martin Ouwehand · Guest

Dans l>article <gcvup9$s1p$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) écrit:

] However, if Michel can, in a well respected refereed
] journal, state that it is wrong to believe that the Casimir effect
] demonstrates the reality of zero-point fluctuations,

this is also claimed in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158v1

] then either there
] is a real controversy or something slipped by the referees which
] shouldn>t have.

--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|___________ Email/PGP: http://personnes.epfl.ch/martin.ouwehand ____________
Perhaps the universe does indeed look
like a tremendous boiling pot of spaghetti. [Edwin Bildwell Wilson]

Richard Saam · Guest

captpaul101@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 6:30 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Stochastic electrodynamics cannot evolve the Schrodinger equation or
the Dirac formalism to date. It offers no alternatives. It makes no
new testable predictions. Claimed accelerated charge interactions
with the vacuum background have been strenuously criticized by Unruh.
This is a bad thing given that the Davies-Unruh effect is SED>s
mechanism for originating inertia.

SED, unless a testable empiricial connection appears, is only better
than string theory for being smaller.

There are some problems with SED working against their hypothesis
however
their idea has some merit, needs further study... Any thoughts on the
following
paper? "On the electromagnetic origin of inertia and inertial mass"

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0284

Are there any theories in the pipeworks that attempt to explain the
mass difference between
the electron and muon? Both particles have same charge but the muon is
207 times more
massive compared to the electron, any ideas what>s going here?

Your question becomes further interesting in terms of the KOIDE Formula[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

Richard D. Saam

Gerry Quinn · Guest

In article <164ae77d-8cab-470d-a2e1-9e0039b5b9c3
@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, captpaul101@hotmail.com says...
[quote]Hi everyone,

Just got a question that>s been on my mind and still troubling me...
I>m reading an excellent book at the moment "Symmetry and the
beautiful universe" by L. Lederman & C. Hill. on p118: "Although we>ll
never really know why there is inertia, we must certainly notice that
there is inertia.". I>m not convinced about Mach>s principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
and Haisch&Rueda>s hypothesis seems to me more interesting:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061

Given our somewhat lack of understanding of how matter interacts with
the quantum vacuum, is there anything wrong in thinking that the
amount of resistance to change in velocity of an object is simply some
kind of reaction force between matter of the object and the local
quantum vacuum during acceleration? So instead of "...inertia
originates in a kind of interaction between bodies..." [Einstein] it
is really the object>s matter during application of the force
"grabbing hold" of the quantum vacuum during acceleration which we
perceive as the resistance or inertia. Just trying to visualise the
physics, nothing concrete in all this, I>m interested in what others
have thought of all this?
[/quote]
If a particle is fundamentally massless, but gains mass by interacting
with some component(s) of the vacuum (Higgs field or whatever), then it
seems to me that the above is kind of a tautology, because if it is
pulled by a force it will in turn pull on the vacuum components that
give it mass. Just as if you pull on a spoon that is immersed in
treacle, it will in turn pull on the treacle.

I think it would be the case irrespective of the exact nature of the
interactions that give it mass; I>m not sure that vacuum fluctuations of
any particular kind would be especially relevant to the situation.

- Gerry Quinn

Hendrik van Hees · Guest

Richard Saam wrote:
[quote]Gerry Quinn wrote:

If a particle is fundamentally massless, but gains mass by interacting
with some component(s) of the vacuum (Higgs field or whatever), then it
seems to me that the above is kind of a tautology, because if it is
pulled by a force it will in turn pull on the vacuum components that
give it mass. Just as if you pull on a spoon that is immersed in
treacle, it will in turn pull on the treacle.

I think it would be the case irrespective of the exact nature of the
interactions that give it mass; I>m not sure that vacuum fluctuations of
any particular kind would be especially relevant to the situation.

Unless the vacuum fluctuations have a frequency(f)
such they are the particle mass(m):

m = hf/c^2

which is the case for a fluctuation of frequency(f)
moving at the speed of light(c)
contained in a nuclear dimension(d)
such that:

f = c/d

proton diameter = 1.73E-13 cm
speed of light(c) = 3.00E+10 cm/sec
frequency(f) = 3.00E+10/1.73E-13 = 1.72E23/sec
planck>s constant = 6.63E-27 erg sec
calculated mass(m)= 6.63E-27*1.72E23/3.00E+10^2 = 1.27E-24 g

actual proton mass= 1.66E-24 g

the calculated mass is not exactly that of actual proton mass
but close enough to indicate some kind of fundamental relationship.

Richard D. Saam

======Moderator>s note==============

I am not sure whether all this makes any sense since usually
in quantum field theories one has to renormalize the vacuum energy.
Thus the absolute value of the vacuum energy is only determined up
to an additive constant.
[/quote]
following up by referencing:
The Quantum Vacuum, 1994 by Peter W. Milonni

Perhaps there is a cut off
dictated by the potential energy barrier
as a function of the speed of light
such that normalization is accounted for
under this nuclear dimension(d).
Then the vacuum fluctuations have a frequency(f)
such they are the particle mass(m):

m = hf/c^2

which is the case for a fluctuation of frequency(f)
moving at the speed of light(c)
contained in a nuclear dimension(d)
such that:

f = c/d

planck>s constant(h) = 6.63E-27 erg sec
electron charge(e) = 4.80E-10 g ^ (1/2) cm ^ (3/2) sec ^ (-1)
proton diameter(d) = 1.73E-13 cm
speed of light(c) = 3.00E+10 cm sec ^ (-1)
nuclear frequency(f) = c/d
= 1.72E23 sec ^ (-1)
nuclear acceleration(a) = d*(c/d)^2
= 5.12E33 cm sec ^ (-2)
nuclear momentum = h/d
= 3.83E-14 g cm sec ^ (-1)

Assuming a planar rectangular nuclear geometrical condition:
nuclear mass calculation = h*f/c^2
= 1.27E-24 g

Assuming a infinite parallel planar nuclear geometrical condition:
Casimir mass calculation = pi*h/(1440* d^3 *c)
= 1.67E-26 g

assuming coulumbic electrical energy and dielectric ~ 1
charge mass calculation = e^2 /(dielectric*d* c^2 )
= 1.47E-27 g

assuming nuclear fluctuations accelerating between two planes
Unruh mass calculation = h*a /(4*pi* c^3 )
= 1.00E-25 g

proton mass(mp) = 1.66E-24 g
tau mass(mt) = 3.17E-24 g
muon mass(mm) = 1.88E-25 g
electron mass(me) = 9.11E-28 g

The calculated nuclear, Casimir, charge and Unru masses based on simple
geometric forms (squares, cubes, parallel planes etc)
are in the range of electron, tau, muon and proton masses
indicating that possibly better approximations to actual particle mass
could be achieved with modified geometric forms
containing the fluctuations.

also note that

m = hf/c^2 and f = c/d

establish a momentum condition

h/d = m*c

and energy condition

(h/d)^2 / m = m*c^2

which would imply an elastic resonance state
accounting for the particle stability
or
if not meeting these elastic resonance states
be an indication of particle instability.

The question is:
what potential energy condition
establishes the 3D geometrical boundary condition?
and
could a particular 3D potential energy condition
result in a calculated Kiode observed formula relationship:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

(me+mm+mt)/(sqrt(me)+sqrt(mm)+sqrt(mt))^2 = 2/3

and could the fraction 2/3 be inherent to such
a characteristic 3D potential energy geometric boundary condition?

Maybe someone has done this?

Richard D. Saam

Guest

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiclothesvax.de> wrote:
[quote]However, if Michel can, in a well respected refereed
journal, state that it is wrong to believe that the Casimir effect
demonstrates the reality of zero-point fluctuations, then either there
is a real controversy or something slipped by the referees which
shouldn>t have.
[/quote]
Copied from a post I made here in 2006:

C. M. Heard <heard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[quote]Can you cite a publication that derives the Casimir effect that does
so _without_ some postulate that provides for a zero-point energy of
hf/2 for each normal mode?
[/quote]
There is a paper by Milonni in Comments on Mod. Phys. V1 m-6, 2000
which covers this; at least I think so since I can>t get hold of
that journal. The result is earlier than that, since I knew of it
before 2000. That issue of CP is, I think, a special issue on the
Casimir effect.

OK, here is an earlier ref:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v45/i7/p4241_1

Source theory of the Casimir force
P. W. Milonni and M.-L. Shih

We show how the Casimir force between dielectrics can be calculated in
terms of source fields, with no explicit reference to zero-point-field
energy. Using Feynman>s interpretation of the Lamb shift, the
commutativity of equal-time electron and field operators, and a
relation between a Green function and a vacuum-field-correlation
function, we show why the theories of Lifshitz, van Kampen, and
Schwinger produce identical results, even though they appear to be
based on very different physical premises. We suggest the possibility
of modifying van der Waals-Casimir forces with any external field
having some degree of spatial coherence.

--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (PHOT) (ph) +44-20-759-47734 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Physics - Research Forum
Page 1 of 1