[Physics] Fwd: Gravity, CMB and use of wiki page.
Arend Lammertink
lamare at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 10:34:26 CEST 2020
Hi Ruud,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Arend.
>
> My papers were once characterized by Carl Johnson as being
> “Kindergarten-talk”. Since you mentioned that once there was *a child*
> that shouted ”The emperor does not wear any clothes”, I am not bothering
> about the classification Kindergarten-talk. However, the more I know, I
> know, I know less. Knowledge.
>
Little has changed since Einstein's time, I'm afraid:
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of
methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people
today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has
seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the
historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from
prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This
independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark
of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after
truth." Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of
Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem].
Even though we now know the reason people can't see the forest, it remains
to be very hard to get to "that kind of independence from prejudices of his
generation from which most scientists are suffering".
>
> Anyway: I am not a physicist, and not a mathematician. So, it might be
> difficult to understand me 😉.
>
> You wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:28 AM to Ruud Loeffen
>
> “There are these gaps, like where the heck did he get that
> 3kT formula? and others like it, but at the end of the day it's the
> (fundamental) ideas that matter most, math and references can (and
> will eventually) be corrected.”
>
> I was triggered by your question
> *“where the heck did he get that 3kT formula”. *("He" is Paul Stowe)
>
> I used this parameter “3kT” also in a formula that I found on: *Maxwell-Bolzmann
> distribution mean square speed*
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution#Typical_speeds> from
> where I used the equation to calculate the Root Mean square velocity of a
> primordial elementary particle in CMB
> [image: image.png]
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> K being the Boltzmann constant (I used kB in equation 312) and T is the
> Temperature of the Microwave Background ( I used Tcmb) and for “m” I used
> mep: mass of a primordial particle.
>
> *( **https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background*
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background> * )*
>
>
Yep, I could find the formula with the 3/2 kT as well, which did not match
Paul's. According to Thornhill, this has to do with the number of degrees
of freedom in the gas:
http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT1.pdf
"Thus, the quest for a gas-like ethereal medium, satisfying Planck’s form
for the energy distribution, is directed to an ideal gas formed by an
infinite variety of particles, all having six degrees of freedom."
Normally, one considers three degrees of freedom associated with the
velocity I think, but the particles also spin around a certain axis and
therefore there's actually six degrees of freedom.
Note that this once again illustrates the importance of the Helmholtz
decomposition, which establishes a fundamental separation into two
components: (a field describing) translation and (a field describing)
rotation.
Paul wrote:
-:-
The equation hv = 3kT comes from the relationship hv = mc^2. The kinetic
energy equation is E = (1/2)mv^2 and the molecular thermal energy equation
is E = (3/2)kT thus,
(1/2)mv^2 = (3/2)kT ==> mv^2 = 3kT
with v = c then mc^2 = 3kT = hv
In the vortex model charge (q) represents and harmonic mass (m) oscillation
(kg/sec), thus the charge to mass ratio (q/m)of of an electron represents
its basic oscillation (v). Given,
hv = 3kT = h(q/m)
so
T = hq / 3mk
-:-
So, this seems to match yours, but I'm afraid it's incorrect like this,
because you also have to account for the spin energy.
According to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
E_rotational = (1/2) I 𝟂^2
So, I think the correct formula would be:
(1/2) (mv^2 + I 𝟂^2) = kT
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> I calculated this on advice of my colleague Tufail Abbas. We were really
> shocked to find that the mass we found was indeed of a magnitude close to
> an electron. This velocity Vcmb is the same as the Vrms 12.278 km/sec
> that we find in our solar system and the VRMS 12.278 km/sec being the
> proposed Universal Root Mean Square Velocity. The value of the mass of
> this elementary particle mep is (deliberately) proposed as
> 7.4868348523E-31 kg. This is remarkably close to the estimated value of the
> Mass of an electron: 9.1091E-31kg. It’s a little bit less in weight than an
> electron (as might be expected for a PRIMORDIAL elementary particle).
>
So, now you have something to ponder about. Because you did not account for
the spin energy, you've found a discrepancy. The question is: how to
resolve it?
Since rotational energy is actually what's stored in the magnetic field,
the magnetic energy stored within the electron should be computable and is
one and the same as what one would consider it's mass-spin energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy
"The energy per unit volume in a region of space of permeability
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)> [image:
{\displaystyle \mu _{0}}] containing magnetic field [image: \mathbf {B}] is:
[image: {\displaystyle u={\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {B^{2}}{\mu _{0}}}}]"
This brings one to the magnetic moment of the electron, around which there
is an anomaly, for which Paul has an explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#Spin_magnetic_dipole_moment
"The total magnetic dipole moment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole_moment> resulting from both
spin and orbital angular momenta of an electron is related to the total
angular momentum *J* by a similar equation:
[image: {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{J}=g_{J}\mu _{\text{B}}{\frac
{\mathbf {J} }{\hbar }}.}]
The g-factor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor_(physics)> *gJ* is
known as the Landé g-factor
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%C3%A9_g-factor>, which can be related
to *gL* and *gS* by quantum mechanics. See Landé g-factor
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%C3%A9_g-factor> for details."
"For the electron spin, the most accurate value for the spin g-factor
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor_(physics)> has been experimentally
determined to have the value
2.00231930436182(52).[3]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#cite_note-3>
Note that it is only two thousandths larger than the value from the Dirac
equation. The small correction is known as the anomalous magnetic dipole
moment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment> of
the electron; it arises from the electron's interaction with virtual
photons in quantum electrodynamics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics>. In fact, one
famous triumph of the quantum electrodynamics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics> theory is the
accurate prediction of the electron g-factor. The most accurate value for
the electron magnetic moment is
−9.284764620(57)×10−24 J/T.[4]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#cite_note-4>"
So yes, it seems to me you guys are up to something, but you're not
completely there yet. Don't know how to work this all out, but perhaps
others have something to add.
> I found some support in this paper:
> http://sci.esa.int/planck/61396-planck-finds-no-new-evidence-for-cosmic-anomalies/
>
> This paper was specifically interesting for me because of this phrase (see
> my bolded indication):
>
> *“....**the Planck team looked at the polarisation of the CMB, which was
> revealed after a painstaking analysis of the multi-frequency data designed
> to eliminate foreground sources of microwave emission, including gas and
> dust in our own Milky Way galaxy. This signal is the best measurement to
> date of the so-called CMB polarisation E-modes, and dates back to the time
> when the first atoms formed in the Universe and the CMB was released. It is
> produced by the way light scattered off electron particles just before the
> electrons were gathered into hydrogen atoms**”.*
>
> This primordial elementary particle would have an energy of 6.728*10^-14
> Joules and 4.199*10^5 eV Just say: 4.2*10^5 eV
>
> I describe this in “Prediction4: Velocity of Cosmic Microwave Background”
> in *CON-FUSING GRAVITATION. Applying the Lorentz Transformation of
> Mass-Energy* <http://bit.ly/2CFGDIh> http://bit.ly/2CFGDIh
> I attach the book as a .PDF in which its more easy to search and scroll
> down.
>
> I strongly advice real physicists NOT to read my book (it will be
> embarrassing).
>
> Some weeks ago, I posted on Physicslist my recently produced You Tube
> video’s. I did not get any reaction from the list. One of the video’s is
> about the VRMS: *A primordial velocity. The VRMS of a semi closed system*
> <http://bit.ly/2U5xOzb> http://bit.ly/2U5xOzb
>
I saw you used what looked like the Lorentz transform. A while ago, Paul
posted an interesting page about that on the LinkedIn "theoretical physics"
group:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6600216501179994112
[image: image.png]
Some of his comments:
"I wish I could comment when posting the topic. This is a scan from the
"Handbook of Physics" Condon & Odishaw Section 3, Chapter 8 Topic 9. Look
closely and you'll see that any moving oscillator at less that the sonic
speed will have its field profile distorted in a Lorentzian fashion (Fig
8.2). In this case (which should be obvious) since the propagation cannot
exceed sonic velocity (c) the 'net' forward speed of propagation must
reduce (c - v). What is not so obvious is that the reverse is also true,
resulting in the illustrated Lorentzian contraction along the axis of
propagation. Compare Feynman's illustration Fig 26-4(b) (Vol II) to Fig
8-2 (a)."
"I did not ask what we have defined our system around... I asked a physics
question. What makes light speed finite, causes it properties (like
Doppler shift, etc.) gives it its Lorentzian nature. Please answer the
question within the confines of the current paradigm without resorting to
basically, "it is what it is" because we measure it so... Essentially,
don't ask that question!
As for Whittaker IIRC it was I that pointed you to that reference and am
well aware of its contents. When I get home from my trip I'll post
Whittaker's take which most certainly DOES NOT! jibe with what you are
claiming. For the reader one should get the two volume set:
https://www.amazon.com/History-Theories-Aether-Electricity-Volumes/dp/0486261263
It is a must read. Yet Whittaker chronicles the works of many physicist up
to the turn of the twentieth century and there views. Just like there
exist several takes on the same topic in current physics. You cited
Maxwell's 1856 work, question is a superfluid like He3 like normal fluids?
Four years later Maxwell makes very explicitly clear what he is working
with..
.. Cont: Ref:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=tzbIXbPgIMus0PEPuta08AM&q=on+physical+lines+of+force+pdf&oq=%22On+Physical+Lines+of+Force%22&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i22i30l4.3886.22264..25900...1.0..0.103.2503.27j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....6..0i362i308i154i357j0i131j0i67j0i10i67j0i22i10i30.g-zcLugUeQM
"
Seems to me these ideas are interesting to explore and discuss.
> Perhaps I have to shout more loudly. Or keep my mouth shut.
>
It seems the best way to earn resepect and recognition is to engage with
other people in discussions by answering their questions.
> Arend, I support your idea about the group discussion tool (peer review
> process). I found a nice group on academia.edu where we exchange ideas in
> a friendly way to cooperate and try to find progress. I probably would join
> your peer review process. IT IS possible to exchange ideas in a way to
> make progress by sharing and collaborating.
>
I was thinking about publishing my paper on researchgate, once I'm
satisfied with the result. Had trouble loggin in to academia, but just
tried a password reset, may that helps.
Best regards,
Arend.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Ruud Loeffen
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>
> Date: di 28 apr. 2020 20:04
> Subject: [Physics] Gravity, CMB and use of wiki page.
> To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <
> physics at tuks.nl>
> Cc: Paul Stowe <paul.stowe at sbcglobal.net>
>
>
> Hi Ruud,
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:28 AM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Arend.
> >
> > You wrote:
> > "Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the
> > elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex
> > ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well
> > as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that
> > the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
> > temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
> > oscillation frequency of the electron".
> > Can you (or Paul Stowe)present a link to a paper where this is
> explained? I am especially interested in "It also predicts that
> > the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
> > temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
> > oscillation frequency of the electron".
> >
> > I also have a calculation in my book "Con-fusing Gravitation" about the
> relation between the temperature of CMBR (2.726 K) and a primordial
> elementary particle. I would like to read Paul Stowes pape about this
> subject.
> >
>
> Stowe is sometimes a bit hard to read, but here it is (same answer as to
> Tom):
>
> https://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237
>
> See attached image for relevant part.
>
> Problem I had is that I couldn't find the 3kT anywhere, but I
> eventually found this, as I wrote to Paul a while ago:
>
> "I also found a rather interesting paper regarding black body
> radiation in relation to aether theory:
>
> http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT1.pdf
>
> "It is shown that Planck’s energy distribution for a black-body
> radiation field can be simply derived for a gas-like ether with
> Maxwellian statistics. The gas consists of an infinite variety of
> particles, whose masses are integral multiples n of the mass of the
> unit particle, the abundance of n-particles being proportional to
> n^−4. The frequency of electromagnetic waves correlates with the
> energy per unit mass of the particles, not with their energy, thus
> differing from Planck’s quantum hypothesis. Identifying the special
> wave-speed, usually called the speed of light, with the wave-speed in
> the 2.7oK background radiation field, leads to a mass 1/2 × 10−39(kg)
> for the unit ether-particle, and an average number of about 360 ether
> particles per cubic centimetre in the background radiation field,
> whose density is about 0.2 ×10−30(kg)/m3."
>
> I find the number of 360 ether particles per cubic centimetre hard to
> believe, so there may be errors in there. Either way, it also uses the
> E=3kT and explains that this is because there are 6 degrees of
> freedom, while your h(nu)=3kT comes a bit out of the blue, which is
> why I found this paper when searching for 3kT.....
> -:-
>
>
> Stowe has the right ideas and insights, but unfortunately he had to do
> without "peer review" nor "group think", which does show itself in
> this paper. There are these gaps, like where the heck did he get that
> 3kT formula? and others like it, but at the end of the day it's the
> (fundamental) ideas that matter most, math and references can (and
> will eventually) be corrected.
>
> Often, his older work gives clues which help working things out.
> Collected quite a bit here:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Paul_Stowe/
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCollectedPosts
>
> And I re-published a few articles on my site and added some
> notes/references, etc:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweFoundationUnificationPhysics
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweNatureOfCharge
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCauseGravityEmQm
>
> It can be helpful to update posts like these by replacing the ascii
> math with latex math, which is rather easy to do with my wiki site.
> I've just changed the site-wide edit password (see attached picture),
> so should anyone feel like helping a hand with that, you're most
> welcome. I've done some of this and in a/o the section "Stowe's aether
> model" on this page one can see how this improves readability and by
> clicking "edit" and typing the attached magic word, one can see how
> it's done:
>
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge
>
> I think the wiki can be very useful as a tool to facilitate a "group
> thinking" process, but it would be up to you guys to fill that in,
> together.
>
> If I'm the only one using the wiki, there's not going to be much of a
> group effort on there......
>
> > Arend: Thank you! You are doing a great job with this discussion forum
> about Maxwells equations and especially the discussion about the aether,
> vortices and gravity.
> >
>
> Thanks a lot, much appreciated!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arend.
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200429/4cc060cb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200429/4cc060cb/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 84189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200429/4cc060cb/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 78804 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200429/4cc060cb/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 712180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200429/4cc060cb/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the Physics
mailing list