[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

[Tufail Abbas]

Dear Jesus,

My further comments are as follows:

ON SOLUTION 1

If photon occupy a definite space that create a space of same size, then
what is your idea about free space. Is it some photon of zero frequency or
something similar or something else.

Are you saying that possibility exists that all photons irrespective of
frequency,  may be all are of same size in volume. If you have any
proof/logic regarding this, please share for my benefit.

ON SOLUTION 2 AND 3

Since I partly agree with you that number of particles are directly related
to (a kind of ) space within a region, my intent through commenting on this
paper is to find out possible leads for solving a related puzzle that I am
working on. Though I do not agree with warping.

OTHER PARTS OF RESPONSE.

It was all insightful, specially following paragraph is thought provoking,.

>>This is, trying to understand why the Schwarzschild metric equations
(based in General Relativity) increase the space around the mass (and with
its corresponding specific value). And why/how the space is
created/occupied by the photons emitted by the particle (and why with that
value).

In this context what is your interpretation of Kappa (8πG/c^2). I mean,
what physically it could mean.

Thanks,

Tufail


On 12 Feb 2017 20:29, <jesus.sanchez.bilbao at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Tufail,



Thanks a lot for your interest in my paper. I answer below with the double
**. I expect I answer your doubts, or better, I create new doubts! Do not
hesitate to contact if any comment.



Thanks a lot and best regards,

Jesus Sanchez



>>When the number of particles increases in a region of space, the space

itself increases in that region, making distances longer [5] in that region

of space. When the number of particles decreases in the same region of

space, the distances become shorter (the space reduces or shrinks) [5].



*Density of particle in a region resulting into increase or decrease of

space, sound like as if ?particle? is cause responsible for effect as

'space warping?. Therefore particle and space are two different physical

entities out there. Hence it is necessary that there should be a mechanism

or physical law by which these two entities interact with each other, and

we should be interested in discovering this mechanism.. Or otherwise , is

it being suggested/assumed by this paper that particle made of

energy/charge are somehow , one and same?*



**I agree with your comment and it is really a problem that is difficult to
understand/solve. If we comment that the 'quantity' of space itself depends
on the number of particles that occupy it, the 'density' of this space
should always be the same in all the areas of space. Therefore, no warping
(gravity) should appear. At this stage, I can see only three solutions:



Solution 1) As you comment, particles and space are different entities and
their relation is based in a still to be discovered mechanism. In this
paper, it has not been considered like this. The effects of the particles
occupying space to the new space created by them, is considered to be 1 to
1. This means, the size of a photon creates space of exactly the same size.
If the relation is not 1 to 1 but it has different factors, this could
approximate even more equation (1) to the known value of G, if these
factors are discovered. So this is clear a possibility and the paper should
be revised if these new factors are discovered.



Solution 2) The following comment that I have said before, is not true:

'If the 'quantity' of space itself depends on the number of particles that
occupy it, the 'density' of this space should always be the same in all the
areas of space. Therefore, no warping (gravity) should appear.'. Could be
that this is not true?

Let's say that even being counter-intuitive, or if it is very difficult to
visualize, it could happen that even not existing an absolute space
background, the different quantities of particles (mainly photons) create
distortions in space. These distortions cannot be observed locally as all
the measurement devices, objects etc... are affected by the same property
of space in the same area.

But yes, it can be observed from one area to another area with a different
number of particles that the properties of space are different in both
locations (distances, lengths of objects, time...). This goes in line with
General Relativity as also there, space has different properties depending
on the position (that creates the warping) with no necessity of a perfect
Euclidean space background. The changes of the metric in space are
completely internal and caused by internal objects. No necessity of a
factor that relates the warped space (the existing one) with an absolute
Euclidean background space.

So it could happen that even if it is difficult to visualize, the number of
particles (mainly photons) could create distortions of space depending on
the quantity of these particles that are acting in the different parts of
space. So their effects are different in one area compared to another one
creating finally the distortions.

Take also into account that in the solution 1), if the factor that relates
the number of particles with the 'quantity' of space is a constant,
solutions 1) and 2) are the same, with a factor of escalation. Solutions 1)
and 2) are only different if the factors depend in variable parameters.



Solution 3) The assumption of the paper that the 'quantity' of space and
the number of particles could be directly (or at least with some factors)
related, is wrong. In this case, it is clear that the paper is wrongly
deployed. The result of the value of G or even some parts or calculations
of the paper could be ok, but at least the interpretation of the
paper/results would be wrong. This is also totally possible, of course.
This is the reason we are commenting the paper.**



>>Remember, that particles in this context mean not only mass particles but

also force carriers, mainly photons that are everywhere in space



*Mass particles  differs from photons, in the sense that they travels at

speed less than c. Will this difference account for any difference in

type/orientation etc of the space that is associated/created with each kind

of particles. Since the derivation is based only on electron and it's

emitted photons, what further implications should we assume for other

particles.*



**At this stage and with these calculations, it has only been validated -or
at least calculated- as you comment, the effects on space of the photons
emitted by an electron.

The effects of other particles have not been calculated so they are not
proved or validated.

Anyhow, following the philosophy of the paper, what it is expected is the
following:

-The effects of mass particles on space are mainly provoked by the
particles (force carriers) that they (the mass particles) emit. These force
carriers increase space with their existence and travel provoking the
warping of space. The issue is that, in general, the force carriers of
other forces that are not e/m (strong and weak) have very limited
life/travel so their effect in space is much less than the photons, that
have almost infinite life in their travel and occupy all the areas of space.

-The effect of mass particles themselves due to their existence, increasing
the 'quantity' of space, it should exist also but very probably is much
less than the effect of the 'force carriers' that they are emitting
continuously. As an example, in my paper I have not considered at all the
presence of the electron as affecting space, just of the photons it is
continuously emitting.

-The effect of non-mass particles (in general photons) is as commented,
increasing the space while they occupy it in their travel. And it is this
increase of space they create, which provokes warping.

-One question it could appear is why there are particles with mass and no
charge. These particles should not emit photons (as the neutron or the
neutrinos for example). The answer here is that they create both positive
and negative e/m fields, cancelling each other but the photons are emitted
anyhow (even if their effects are cancelled as e/m). These photons emitted
occupy space and warp it, as commented.

This can be see clearly in the neutron as it is composed by quarks with
positive and negative charges (even if the result is zero). Or in the
neutrinos that have magnetic moment (what means that they have somehow an
intrinsic charge distribution inside, even if the sum is zero).**



>>Even with the not intuitive assumptions commented in chapter 1 and the

assumptions considered to perform the calculations, the result is

surprising anyhow?...The added value of this paper is that the theory leads

to a calculation of G using only electromagnetic parameters that is a way

of validating or at least giving some push to the theory.



*No doubt , this was a great paper trying to find a possible connection

between electromagnetism and gravity and such endeavor should continue.

Values matched, data fits in. In order to further validate the equation of

G, we need to discover the physical significance of each of the parameters

that is used in the equation. *



**Thanks a lot. Yes, trying to understand the meaning of each parameter in
the equation (1) could be difficult or at least not intuitive. Instead of
trying to understand the equation (1) I would recommend to try to
understand the concepts from its origin.

This is, trying to understand why the Schwarzschild metric equations (based
in General Relativity) increase the space around the mass (and with its
corresponding specific value). And why/how the space is created/occupied by
the photons emitted by the particle (and why with that value).

Take into account, that in this paper, the calculation of G results as a
'side effect' of making equal both concepts.

Anyhow, if we are able to understand the really meaning of equation (1)
would be a great advance!**



*As on date we still don't know, what exactly/ physically does E=mc2 mean,

or atleast their is no consensus in its physical meaning.*



**Fully agree with that. But that, has not stopped us to get a lot of
different applications (in medicine, energy...) which could not be possible
without that equation. With this, I mean, we can and we should go forward
with the different little (or of course very big as E=mc2) achievements
even if we do still do not understand them completely.**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170212/7cd5e856/attachment.html>