Post by Sabbir Rahmansays...
Post by The StarmakerIs Gravity and Electricity the same thing?
I gotta find a paper on it...
Here is a paper that shows that electrodynamics is emergent from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386633510
_Charge_is_Dimensionless_Classical_electrodynamics_from_the_motion_of_a_
self-gravitating_dipolar_relativistic_fluid
Hello. When you say "positive or negative mass",
is that to be read as that the electron is "vacillating",
its rest mass, which is small, and "vanishing", that
the electron more or less a wiggle? These "exotic
dipolar particles"?
Waves is a usual model of propagation and change
in an open system, that's agreeable. There's Huygen's
principle that "radiation is waves is radiation is waves",
then that at some point like the pseudo-differential
is the wavelet, or ondes and ondelettes.
Here the Lorentzian signature is (+, +, +, -) not (-, -, -, +).
The definition of "continuous relativistic fluid" would
usually entail notions of "incompressibility" here though
with regards to the "viscoelastic".
In (2), needn't the "c^2" term be distributed across?
The footnote (d) is indeed quite seeming.
"Most physicists unfortunately tend to be rather allergic
to the idea that the r < 0 region is physically real as
it would imply the existence of both negative mass particles
and closed timelike curves (CTCs) that violate causality."
"Our firm position on this matter is that the r < 0 region is very
clearly an intrinsic part of the original mathematical solution - not
merely an extension - and cannot simply be discarded or brushed under
the carpet because it is mathematically or physically “inconvenient”."
Here there's that at r = 0 in the middle of a black hole
is a singularity and asymptotic, while, in multiplicity theory,
any singularity is merely a multiplicity. It is so though that
r < 0 is indeed not real when r, the radius, is an unsigned magnitude.
Then, to be making "negative time" and "negative mass" and
these kinds of things is considered not having a physical
interpretation, and furthermore not having a mathematical
interpretation. Now, that's not to say that something like
anti-deSitter space or even Kaluza-Klein isn't merely a
"book-keeping dimension", here of the adiabatic and
non-adiabatic, yet the theory no longer remains "physical".
Why it is possibly mathematically inconsistent to do so
is because circles have radius r > 0, otherwise you'd
have to make the theory of "circloids r > 0 or r <= 0".
Otherwise it's figured the exotic particles for electrons
can be "vacillating vanishing-rest-mass electrons", and
those living in the kinetic, then uniting kinetic and gravity
and nuclear force via mechanics, for a quantum gravity like
a fall-gravity, with relativistic space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, each.
So, "electrons as super-classically oscillating", is not so bad.
Thanks for mentionining Villata in footnote (e).
"This can be understood as follows. Once the mass-density of the two
fluid components have been fixed to be equal and opposite, all that
remains will be to find their corresponding velocity vector fields
v + and v − ."
"The requirement that the mass density of the two
components of the fluid be equal and opposite
everywhere effectively ensures that the two sets
of fluid particles are always comoving. This must
hold irrespective of the volume of the fluid under
consideration, ..."
I like the intuition, though someone can come along and give
inductive accounts of inconsistency about that.
About volume V and infinitesimal dV, as with regards
to usually the Laplacian the sum of second partials,
and the usual formulas that make up then what give
Maxwell's, is also "intuitive" this
"So zooming out and considering a small but finite
volume of fluid δV , the total mass of particles in
that fluid element must be ρδV ."
That is to say, the differential when partials
may talk about second-order changes yet doesn't
necessarily include content.
"Now it is always possible to choose the function ψ
implementing the gauge transformation in such a way
that φ = 0 everywhere...", if according to Landau
and Lifschitz, "The Classical Theory of Fields",
when I say that I think that's not necessarily so
is that sometimes the gauge transformation implements
the Schroedinger picture not the other way around.
"This completes our proposition that the physical
basis underlying the standard texbook formulation
of classical electrodynamics is the motion of a
space-filling self-gravitating dipolar relativistic
fluid which can be identified as the ‘luminiferous aether’."
That may be kind of so yet it's all only electrical
about distinguishing mass and charge as different
quantities, and frame-spaces and space-frames as
different things, that it seems what you're talking
about is purely or merely electrical, though otherwise
this amuses me and I hope that you carry on about it.
"In this paper we have demonstrated the simple yet
profound result that all of the equations of classical
electrodynamics follow from the motion of a space-filling
relativistic fluid consisting of particles that are
gravitational dipoles if the electromagnetic 4-potential
is identified with the 4-momentum of that fluid."
When you say "classical" and "dipoles" at the same time,
to get back to that is "super-classical" as some point,
and also assumes no gravitational dynamics which are
always in effect, because the geodesy is always current.
So, yeah mostly it's footnote (d) that is can't be agreed.
Yet, if develop a theory of "r > 0 and r <= 0 circloids",
or spheroids, then about there being instead of positive
and negative mass and motion, instead just "constant motion",
electrons as "vacillating", then it would be physical without
non-physical things like "negative mass" or "negative energy"
or "negative time", though it would have "super-classical motion".