djolds1 wrote:Haisch's hypothesis for the origin of inertia is intuitively simple and elegant. The downside is that it requires the electromagnetic zero point field be real, which most theoretical physicists dismiss out of hand. IIRC one of Haisch's collaborators (Rueda?) also has "questionable" physics associations - "free energy," if memory serves.
I haven't done any physics reading for a year or so, but If memory serves, isn't the predominant theory that inertia is caused by bosons interacting with the "Higgs Field" ? (and these guys don't like the either theory! )
Haisch & Co. claim that inertia is essentially an electromagnetic "drag" interaction between the electromagnetic fields of "real" particles and the emfs of "virtual" particles that continually pop into and out of existence thanks to the zero point field. Further, IIRC, they claim that acceleration distorts the zpf in predictable ways, and that concentrated masses create the same distortion in the zpf - i.e. gravity. They call this the "polarizable vacuum" if memory serves.
MSimon wrote:The more I see of physics (in its current state) the more I see knowledge wrapped up in complete packages suitable for consumption in the daily newspaper with consensus and no mention of the huge holes and serious doubts that we know anything more than engineering physics i.e. in this domain these calculations work and in that domain you do it that way and when you cross domains you are on your own.
I'm beginning to think it is all climate science - i.e. fraud.
Fraud is a strong charge, especially in science. But cosmology, with its near two generation long dual obsessions with both the "beautiful" string theology and theoretically ugly (IMO) Standard Model reminds me of fusion physics for the same last ~2 generations - certain the current obsessions are correct and eternally stuck in neutral as a result.
Groupthink and careers too invested to back down does not, quite, equate to fraud.
It is fraud if the questions have been known and well documented for 50 years and yet where people go back and look at these questions THEY are called frauds.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:The more I see of physics (in its current state) the more I see knowledge wrapped up in complete packages suitable for consumption in the daily newspaper with consensus and no mention of the huge holes and serious doubts that we know anything more than engineering physics i.e. in this domain these calculations work and in that domain you do it that way and when you cross domains you are on your own.
I'm beginning to think it is all climate science - i.e. fraud.
People can't bear more than a bit of ambiguity. The kaleidoscopic vision of so many possible explanations all simultaneously considered.. Like Stephenson put it as a parable:
"the difference between stupid and intelligent people—-and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations—in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward."
Not only does this ever in flux state of science baffle common people, but Science seems to be becoming so specialized that it's increasingly more than the average Joe that's left to take specialists' word for it. It's definitely wrong to accomodate a lack of understanding of this dynamic, instead of clearly and accurately ... of succintly presenting the straight dope like e.g. Feynman did. Even if the audience is left frozen trying to wrap their head around it. Entropy at work.
MSimon wrote:That at least some component of inertia is due to the charges of particles.
That's a big affirmation. There is yet no paper (known to me) that goes even slightly near to prove this. Was he mentioning any reference in the book or it was just an hypothesis?
He did a proof. Not formal, but the math is laid out starting from Maxwell. You have to go back quite a few chapters to see how it develops but it is all there.
Ah, you was meaning a "part of the amount of Inertia"! I read it as "a component of what gives origin to Inertia". All clear now.
As for Haisch hypothesis, it looks interesting, but like as already been told, it requires the ZPF to be real. A quick search on wikipedia on Haish:
This assertion, that accelerated observers experience a force due to the zero-point field, and that this "electromagnetic reaction force" is responsible for the inertia of material objects, rests upon a computation in which Haisch and Rueda have computed a nonzero "zero point field Poynting vector". (See the 1998 Foundations of Physics paper cited below.)
Computations by other physicists, such as Bill Unruh, apparently contradict this result. The mainstream view is that the zero point field does not give rise to a physical force on observers accelerating with respect to "the vacuum". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Unruh
In the last years I have been looking more deeply to HEIM view of elementary particle structures and origin of Inertia.
I personally find more elegant his Geometric view of the universe.
This gives a good sum up of Heim Hypothesis: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... erbach.pdf
I would love if the human kind will be able to understand what are the origins of Inertia and Gravity during my life time. Apart from being fashinating subjects, understanding this can really give us clues on this crazy universe.
Giorgio wrote:As for Haisch hypothesis, it looks interesting, but like as already been told, it requires the ZPF to be real. A quick search on wikipedia on Haish:
This assertion, that accelerated observers experience a force due to the zero-point field, and that this "electromagnetic reaction force" is responsible for the inertia of material objects, rests upon a computation in which Haisch and Rueda have computed a nonzero "zero point field Poynting vector". (See the 1998 Foundations of Physics paper cited below.)
Computations by other physicists, such as Bill Unruh, apparently contradict this result. The mainstream view is that the zero point field does not give rise to a physical force on observers accelerating with respect to "the vacuum". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Unruh
In the last years I have been looking more deeply to HEIM view of elementary particle structures and origin of Inertia.
I personally find more elegant his Geometric view of the universe.
This gives a good sum up of Heim Hypothesis: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... erbach.pdf
Been following EHT since the New Scientist article in early 2006. Interesting thing about Extended Heim Theory (hypothesis, really) - NOM (Non-Ordinary Matter) is essentially virtual particles (not unlike those that continually pop out of the zpf) that in the proper conditions have real physical interactions and effects.
Giorgio wrote:I would love if the human kind will be able to understand what are the origins of Inertia and Gravity during my life time. Apart from being fascinating subjects, understanding this can really give us clues on this crazy universe.
Ditto. Tho the hyperdrive would be a nice ornament as well...
Giorgio wrote:I would love if the human kind will be able to understand what are the origins of Inertia and Gravity during my life time. Apart from being fascinating subjects, understanding this can really give us clues on this crazy universe.
Ditto. Tho the hyperdrive would be a nice ornament as well...
)
