Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Russell Jurgensen: on 3/29/11 at 22:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, Thank you for your comment. I am happy to hear from you...

Russell Jurgensen: on 3/29/11 at 22:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, Thank you for the copy of your letter. An interesting...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/28/11 at 14:15pm UTC, wrote Hi Dear Russel, Thanks for your post. You make relevant points about the...

basudeba: on 3/20/11 at 5:59am UTC, wrote Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for...

Tommy Gilbertson: on 3/17/11 at 13:08pm UTC, wrote Good Job Russell. Knew an excellent Essay when I saw one...

Russell Jurgensen: on 3/13/11 at 20:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Chris, Thank you for your nice comments, and I really appreciate your...

Chris Kennedy: on 3/12/11 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Russell, First- than you for your very nice comments about my essay. It's...

Russell Jurgensen: on 3/9/11 at 19:17pm UTC, wrote Here are the equations for internal particle motion conjecturing...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Quantum Vacuum Sustaining Force Model by Russell Jurgensen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Russell Jurgensen wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 12:18 GMT
Essay Abstract

When elementary particles first emanated from the quantum vacuum, there may have remained a connection still propelling their internal motion. A possible model for this connection is explored through a quantum vacuum energy potential producing a particle’s motion through a series of perpendicular forces. In the process of producing internal particle motion, a secondary energy potential develops to produce acceleration on other particles in the form of a reinterpreted Coulomb force. Equations are introduced describing the combination of electromagnetic force, strong interaction, and gravity, with units naturally working out from first principles. While this exploratory model is in a preliminary stage of development, it offers a refreshingly different view of reality.

Author Bio

The author received a degree in electrical engineering in 1989 and currently is an engineering consultant developing software and numerical analysis tools for industrial and scientific applications.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
Hi Russell

Your concept of e/m induction forces driving atomic structure is very much as I conceived things in my Beautiful Universe model. Your Figure 6 is an example of that. I am wary of extra dimensions, though. Perhaps reading about all those extra dimensions of String Theory has made me allergic to the concept! In fact in my model Nature has zero inherent dimensions - time does not exist as such, and the 3 space dimensions emerge as a by-product of the inductive interactions of the dielectric nodes of a universal lattice. Cheers.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments pointing out the similarities with your observations. (Your ideas are intriguing and I will comment on your essay soon.) It seems the idea of explaining the fundamental forces through purely electromagnetic induction force is attractive as we both seem to lean that direction.

With the dimensions, I am attempting to describe how a single potential can generate force equally in all directions to propel particle motion like a motor. So I hope the specific definition of dimensions is not too distracting.

Interesting that you mention time, as this essay also does not have a time dimension. Instead the magnitude of the single potential propels motion which then defines time.

Thank you again for your thoughts. Kind regards,

Russell

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 00:23 GMT
Dear Russell

Exactly time is defined by physical changes in the system and has no independent existence. J. C. Maxwell drew a model of the ether complete with rotating negatively charged 'gears' and some beads between them I wish we had more information about this model. Hertz also wrote ideas on an electric ether. I will have to read your paper more carefully, but yes a force field could well be thought of as a dimension so there is no problem there. It is fun to study these things and 'think different'.

Kind regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 13:05 GMT
Hi Russell, I replying to your post from another essay thread:

Dear Alan,

I also think along these lines that all particles have an internal system that works nearly the same as each other. You might be interested in a visual model of how this works, and that is the direction taken in my essay. A satisfactory argument for discreteness would also include a reason for it. For example, when an electron absorbs a photon, how does that happen? There must be something internal that holds it or ejects it.

In scanning other essays I have seen photons modeled with spheres or elements which are very interesting but I think my essay is the only one so far that explores internal forces producing the shape and motion of particles. These ideas nicely refine equations for how particles interact with each other.

Kind regards,

Russell Jurgensen

I'm interested in the notion of mechanical structure and force as the reality behind reality and therefore the best visualisation of how elementary particles interact with one another. Is this something you have thought about? Someone has recently informed me that Maxwell solved his equations via mechanical means after his mathematical deductions. Is this something which could apply to you perhaps?

Cheers, Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 20:38 GMT
Thank you for re-posting my comment over here. You bring up a good point that may offer a surprising distinction between views of reality. Using a mechanical notion for a smallest device can be useful for visualization, but one might ask what the device itself is made from so it does not put off the problem one level deeper.

I like the theme of this essay contest because it asks us to define at least one aspect of the reality device. Is it digital or analog? Is it produced by digital processing or a continuous system?

I read your own essay with a twinkle in my eye because consciously or subconsciously you picked a fairly extreme example in the Archimedes screw as the smallest mechanical device explaining reality. Let's say, for example, everyone agrees that a bold Archimedes screw is the smallest device. Of course, none of us would think it is made out of metal or wood. It would, however, be made of something. Wouldn't that something itself have internal forces holding the screw together, keeping its shape, and making it move?

Interestingly, the same question applies to other possible smallest mechanical devices that appear in some other essays. A digital processing model would be similar because it would need something to perform the processing.

So we really need a description of how the smallest device holds together internally (or digitally processes). Once we have that description, the higher operation would hopefully be clear and its predictions could be tested.

In my essay I explore a system of forces that might occur inside a smallest device which is really not a mechanical device at all. I'm tempted to say there is nothing there, but there is something defined with a point-like center position. As forces cause motion of this something, I suppose you could say an enveloping shape appears, mostly resembling a fuzzy sphere similar to that described in some other essays. We are describing the same thing after all, which is what makes up photons, electrons, and protons.

A photon in this model could resemble an Archimedes screw as it travels, but it would not be a screw; nor would there be actual mechanical screws in space moving the photon along. The exploratory model I am proposing uses only a pure system of potentials, forces, and motion propelled from a single quantum vacuum potential. What that potential is made of also needs further definition but to me it provides a more satisfactory deep-level explanation without needing a mechanical device.

Thanks again for your comment. I'm curious what you think of this type of approach.

Kind Regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share


Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Thanks for the consideration of the structural helical particle idea Russell. The concerns you raise are exactly the same for String theory, or any other theory as you suggest. It's the creation of structure from nothing, a void, which is inescapable imo. It HAS to be so. Best wishes, Alan.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Russell Jurgensen wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT
I think I'll avail myself of FQXI's great feature of each author having a forum to write a note of clarification.

A friend who recently read my essay commented that he read it twice and then realized that the concept is going back before quantum mechanics and starting over. Especially, it is not the same quantum vacuum that is considered to produce particle pairs.

Perhaps I should have titled the essay, "The Sustaining Potential". The essay explores this potential as evenly distributed throughout space causing internal motion of photons, electrons, and protons. Internal motion then causes the behavior of atoms we see.

That there is a hidden potential throughout space is not surprising. Take a look at the common equation for gravitational potential: P = -GM/r with units of m^2/s^2.

Simply add the sustaining potential S to get P = S - GM/r which represents the remaining potential available for electromagnetic forces. It is now the derivative of this available electromagnetic potential that causes the acceleration of gravity.

The implications for the way we view everything from thermodynamics to the strong force are shocking. I invite you to read the essay again and see what you think. With so many other essays, and this one requiring some simple adjustments to deeply ingrained ideas, it may take a little effort, but it is worth it. Enjoy!

Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share



Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 23:08 GMT
Dear Russell Jurgensen,

1) Your essay contradicts quantum mechanics. You write:

- ''The particle is still moving like a baseball hit by a bat... The direction of this force constantly changes as the particle changes internal direction and speed. Depending on the kind of particle, it may end up in a fuzzy sphere for a proton or in a straight-line motion with oscillation for a photon''.

Quantum particles do not have trajectory and do not move classically; instead the particle 'propagates' as a cloud of probability. The straight-lines cannot exist in microworld because geometry fluctuates at small scales. It is senseless to consider quantum particles as bodies that move classically on definite trajectories under action of forces.

2) Your essay is a plagiarism - since you consider ''gravity comes through the same mechanism as electromagnetic force'', then you must mention other authors who published this idea in the past; I don't see these papers and authors in your references list.

3) The strong interaction cannot have the electromagnetic nature because the nuclear forces must be much stronger than electromagnetic. If the nuclear forces have the electromagnetic nature, then a nucleus cannot exist, because the forces of attraction and repulsion between nucleons will be the same.

4) Gravity cannot have the electromagnetic nature. In such case please explain how your electromagnetic gravity can curve spacetime.

Sinserely,

Constantin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Constantin,

I am grateful for your comments because they give me a chance to describe a few important aspects of my essay. I also appreciate your taking the time to read it and look for problems and inconsistencies. This kind of feedback is valuable and can only make an idea (if valid) better by facing them. So I admire your willingness to point things out.

1) The exploration...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Russ Otter wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
Dear Russell,

You and I my friend are on the same track. Deep Congratulations for doing the detailed work you have accomplished primarily in the world of particle physics. Quite impressive… If you ever would like to work on that horrible idea of mine “Continuous Motion”… Let’s do it. Again, all the best, Russ

PS… You get my vote!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear Russ,

Thank you very much for the encouragement! I have found it a fascinating project. I am refining the equations to be suitable for computer modeling. Then there is further correlation with existing data and testing against predictions. Having a definite idea of what produces particle motion is critical and I think the goal of this essay contest is to get those ideas to the surface. I'm learning from this contest and how to describe a sustaining potential with equations of motion and concrete units of measurement.

Thanks again for such fine encouragement. I also encourage you to keep defining your concept. I'll comment a bit more on your essay soon.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share



Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Whew! Thanx for reading my essay and the excellent comments. I am about to read your own and was checking out your thread first. Yikes: lot going on here.

Importantly, though, it would seem there is an over-arching theme (framework) emerging from these essays (among others). That is a debate about hidden dimensions and/or hidden internal structure in the subatomic particles.

The LHC website has a surprising result that is so far unexplained: when protons collide with enough or more force to produce more than 122 particle products or so, the excess partiles travel off in the same direction! Clearly, either a heretofore unknown internal structure is being revealed, and/or those particles are expeiriencing the same force (or the same resultant forces).

FRom your thread, you have touched upon this in your essay, with the help of other's results. In my own essay is an explanation for this. I plan on continuing to develop the implications of my essay whatever the results of this competition, due to the excitement and critical thinking that I've been forced to hone therein. There is another exciting result from my essay, I am learning.

Another article in last months scientific american; where a theoretical physicist bemoans the fact that as a group they are having great trouble picturing what is going on with their various models of reality, due to the great complexity of the equations. Again, the path is laid out in my essay, and the clarification of modern theoretical concepts can be explained " in language a patient bartender can understand".

This is simple, and I can contribute to the advancement of our understanding if given the opportunity.

Look forward to reading yours, Russel. Because sharp minds think alike, I'll wager yuor essay touches upon these topics indepentdently.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Tommy,

Thanks for stopping in to look. I appreciated the humor in your essay a lot since it pointed out so clearly how some logic can look real but isn't. In my essay I'm seriously exploring how something very simple like a single sustaining potential, spread out evenly through space, can propel internal motion in photons, electrons, and protons. It attempts to break out of the spacetime and quantum mechanics molds in order to explain them at a deeper level without resorting to illogical constructs. That is why I thought you would be interested to scan my essay to detect lapses in logic.

It does seem to be a positive direction that people are looking for deeper reasons. As many others, I also suspect we are very close to the limits of what can be detected, but since that limit is nearly hidden it is very difficult to analyze. Just think of the effort going into this essay contest. One almost has to make an educated conjecture and work it through to its conclusion to determine if it is right or wrong. Several things can help along the way. The units in equations should follow through. I believe I am thinking on the same lines as you and others that if the math gets to where the intermediate steps have no physical correlation, it is an indicator it is losing touch. It may provide better data fitting, but provides no further insight to the reality. (Digital models are interesting but put the problem one level deeper.)

Yes, without the help of results from others, no progress could be made. I'm glad to be learning too.

By the way, do you have a link to that LHC note? With that many particles it could be tough to explain but interesting to ponder.

I enjoyed your essay so much. Humor is a trait of an observant mind, and you definitely hit some key points.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 05:59 GMT
excellent essay, russel. you are right in your comments: if we collaborated on an essay (hint-hint) we could knock the socks of another upcoming contest, and maybe get the bigwigs to actually check out our essays.

heres a link to the LHC, but I couldn't find the specific reference to the excess-parts-flying-off-in-the-same-directions link. That can also be foundin last month's SciAm magazine.

http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:25 GMT
Here's an interesting link with a visual simulation model of what all the fuss is about subrealism:

ScientificAmerican | In its first six months of operation, the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva has yet to find the Higgs boson, solve the mystery of dark matter or discover hidden dimensions of spacetime. It has, however, uncovered a tantalizing puzzle, one that scientists will take up again when the collider restarts in February following a holiday break. Last summer physicists noticed that some of the particles created by their proton collisions appeared to be synchronizing their flight paths, like flocks of birds. The findings were so bizarre that “we’ve spent all the time since [then] convincing ourselves that what we were see ing was real,” says Guido Tonelli, a spokesperson for CMS, one of two general-purpose experiments at the LHC.

The effect is subtle. When proton collisions result in the release of more than 110 new particles, the scientists found, the emerging particles seem to fly in the same direction. The high-energy collisions of protons in the LHC may be uncovering “a new deep internal structure of the initial protons,” says Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, winner of a Nobel Prize for his explanation of the action of gluons. Or the particles may have more interconnections than scientists had realized. “At these higher energies [of the LHC], one is taking a snapshot of the proton with higher spatial and time resolution than ever before,” Wilczek says.

When seen with such high resolution, protons, according to a theory developed by Wilczek and his colleagues, consist of a dense medium of gluons—massless particles that act inside the protons and neutrons, controlling the behavior of quarks, the constituents of all protons and neutrons. “It is not implausible,” Wilczek says, “that the gluons in that medium interact and are correlated with one another, and these interactions are passed on to the new particles.”

If confirmed by other LHC physicists, the phenomenon would be a fascinating new finding about one of the most common particles in our universe and one scientists thought they understood well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Russell,

Could it be that gluons have the helical configuration I talk about so much and so are able to create this flocking effect due to their force of attraction??

All the best, Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thanks for finding that link! Very fascinating. I would want to get much more detail on the experiment like which detectors spotted the particles. Then there are a ton of other variables to analyze. This would give an idea of whether they are photons, electrons, etc. Note that no detector has actually spotted an up/down quark, gluon etc. Those particles are a theory to explain what is actually detected like photons, charged particles, and massive particles formed during collision, if I'm understanding right.

It would be fun, however, to speculate what is going on with this report. Something I am trying to understand is how the energy of a single photon can be split into lower energy photons like in the fluorescent light from rocks. At LHC, perhaps a very high energy proton releases its energy as a bunch of lower energy photons. But I'm not even sure if the flock of particles are photons or something else. If they are all photons it could explain why they don't repel or attract but why they all started off the same direction is a good question.

My exploratory model deals the the center location of particle and their interaction but still needs further definition. The main focus of the exploration is to see if a single sustaining potential can help explain things.

Overall very interesting. While some people consider LHC excessive, aren't we glad to know about some of these things to study them?

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Russell, yes it's a good find and I'm pleased to be having a dialogue with the creator as we speak. Hopefully he can shed some light on the LHC latest results. I'm still getting to know it a bit better. We're getting close to the answers now. Yes indeed, what an excellent machine the LHC is, I've perhaps underestimated it's significance until now. All the best.

Cheers, Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
Heh heh impressive achievement russell. I loved your essay fiercely...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 23:33 GMT
When elementary particles first emanated from the quantum vacuum, there may have

remained a connection still propelling their internal motion"

What is the relationship of "first principle" to a singularity, a point of infinite mass, infinite density or energy.

Your view is well argued, but when I think of "first principle" my mind goes to the singularity of the big bang. It is a mystery none of us can relate to, I suppose.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear James,

Thanks for your note. Yes, good questions. Interestingly, the model takes several steps away from singularities. It uses the word, emanated, to include other possible starting scenarios, some perhaps not even thought about yet. The first principle in this model comes from the single sustaining potential, S, with units of length^2/time^2. (The sustaining potential essentially produces length and time.) Consider equation (5) for available sustaining potential when another particle is present: S = S0 - Vem^2 d / r, (re-interpreted from the Newtonian gravitational potential equation). The sustaining potential goes to zero as opposed to going to infinity. The term Vem represents internal particle motion (described by the other equations) and is tied to gravity.

Yes, no matter how we look at it, it remains a mystery. The single sustaining potential also must have a deeper reality behind it that might not be measurable. The model describes the sustaining potential and the substance of particles as undefined. It is only the motion and interaction that make a difference for our reality.

Thank you for taking a look! I appreciated the way you covered a wide range of reality in your essay.

Kind regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share



Author Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 06:47 GMT
I would like to add acknowledgments for those who helped on this essay. Thank you to Maylan Schurch for your insightful comments on the draft and for your encouragement. Thank you to Lynette Bramlett for your proof-reading expertise and encouragement. Thank you to my wife, Amber Jurgensen, for your ever-ready assistance and your patient encouraging support. Thank you to my family for giving me books on science, and thank you to friends who let me bounce ideas off of you. I also would like to thank FQXi for this essay contest.

Kind regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 21:21 GMT
Russel

A very valid EM viewpoint and nicely presented. What really hit me, and will earn you a top score from me, was towards the end, with your; "When things start moving and other particles are introduced, the energy potential within the e-m plane changes. A clock within this new reference frame will measure time differently." and initial concept on light changing speed between frames.

This is something I've been exploring to it's logical conclusions, and, although it was a bit of an aside, it seems your intuition was correct as it has shown able to simply unify SR and QM with a simple wave particle interaction mechanism. Please do read my essay and comment if you have time, (but just a quick 'scan over' would miss the complex conceptual point, like many have).

Best of luck with yours, and please do comment re the local speed/change model.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your pleasant comment and for reading my essay. I have seen your posts on other essays and I had planned to read your essay again. I just now gave it a slower read and it is very interesting. Your concept of the speed of light changing as it changes reference frames does seem to correlate with the concept in my essay. I like how you apply the ideas to several observations in nature. When I originally worked out the equations considering a single sustaining potential, I was surprised to see they indicated the speed would change as a particle traveled into different gravitational reference frames. It is encouraging that you have thought through many relativity issues using the concept of a changing speed of light. l will read your essay again and comment on it.

Thanks for spotting that similarity and for your nice comment.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share



Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 23:33 GMT
shoot dang laptop erased a long and brilliant post.

ooasdjfo

anyway russ your essay is groudbreaking and important. Good job.

I rate high now...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Tommy,

Thank you for coming back to mention that and for your encouragement. I also want to encourage you. Your excellent essay seems to be a litmus test on several levels. One needs to read essays and comments from the first ones up to get the full benefit. It will get a high mark from me here soon, and I suspect many others have appreciated it who have not commented.

Kind regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT
Tommy, I empathise! So much genius lost forever in cyberspace. Lucky we're only holograms I spose!

Russel,

Thanks for your excellent post, and comprehension. I agree with your points and similarities. Another top score going on. I'll respond under the post.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
What is mass? Consider the well known mass-energy equation.



Mass is a scalar modifying a quantity describing motion. c2, in the essay's exploration, is a sustaining potential spread evenly through space, referred to as S.

If mass describes internal motion of particles, there must be a way to analyze the motion by replacing mass with some sort of motion. The essay introduces a set of equations describing one possible analysis of the motion. The following post revises the equations slightly to remove mass and only show the motion. The results are worth examining.

Kind regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share


Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Here are the equations for internal particle motion conjecturing c2 as the single sustaining potential (S in the essay) and removing mass in favor of motion. There is, however, a clear equation calculating mass from the motion below. I prefer S instead of c2 because it gives the singule potential concept, but c2 is used below for clarity.

c2 =...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
Russell,

First- than you for your very nice comments about my essay. It's nice to share ideas this quickly with people.

Regarding your essay: You bring a very interesting idea to the table! And with regard to your analogy using wind to describe force application - let me say I'm a big fan.

From the time you submitted your essay, have you thought further about how the relation between the QV potential and the Kinetic potential are affected in a relativistic example where the inertia of the particle increases? Might be an interesting follow-up!

Best of luck.

Chris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 20:53 GMT
Dear Chris,

Thank you for your nice comments, and I really appreciate your looking over the equations enough to ask a relevant question about them. Yes, I have thought some about relativistic examples and can give a general idea of one. Accelerating a proton to near light speed is a fascinating example. Does the mass grow and length shorten as suggested by special relativity, or does something else happen? (I am a huge fan of special relativity, by the way, and I think it gives accurate calculations. The QV sustaining potential gives another way to look at it.) Consider equation (1) from the essay that gives the force into the e-m plane.



It is expected that the force goes to zero when stable, which means S - Vem2 - Vxyz2 = 0. So as the momentum increases (or the kinetic potential Vxyz2 increases), the potential in Vem2 decreases. There may be some limit to how small Vem2 can go. The main idea is there is an upper limit on the kinetic potential Vxyz2.

The overall effect is that it seems the mass increases but the actual mechanism is that S is the maximum QV (sustaining) potential available to the particle. As the particle approaches the speed of c, it takes exponentially more energy to accelerate it and convert its motion to kinetic energy as we see in a particle accelerator.

I hope that describes something for the question you asked. I expect there is much work to be done in correlating these ideas to existing concepts. It is fun to stretch the mind!

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share



Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:08 GMT
Good Job Russell. Knew an excellent Essay when I saw one...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 05:59 GMT
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for the copy of your letter. An interesting dilemma -- how to bring new ideas to the surface, and how to fairly judge them. I give credit to FQXi and Scientific American for allowing all the entrants into the contest and trying to make it fair. It is not perfect as you have pointed out. On the positive side, the contest does let us see new ideas to ponder them. I'm sorry your essay and mine didn't score higher. Observing the number of votes each essay received, it looks like authors were not able to carefully read all the other essays. It seems like a valid new idea needs much work in logical development, correlation with existing data, and testing of its predictions before it becomes convincing and interesting to the larger group. The question is how to get that traction to enable the work to be done. Getting the ideas out there is a nice start, and I'm happy about that.

Thank you again, and I would like to encourage you as well.

Kind regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 14:15 GMT
Hi Dear Russel,

Thanks for your post.

You make relevant points about the mass and the special relativity. What happens indeed, it's as in a BEC also...the secrets of our Universal sphere are incredibles and fascinatings.....

All the best

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your comment. I am happy to hear from you because I have enjoyed your comments on other essays.

That is a good idea to look into correlating with BEC experiments. Yes, nature is incredible and fascinating!

Kind regards, Russell

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.