Far Field Jerk Radiation Reaction in a Cramer Transaction =/= Near Field Acceleration Inertial Reaction
On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:10 PM,
Well, Jack is certainly right that radiation reaction is a lot subtler than is commonly thought (if thought of at all). Certainly, induction fields per se (which can be cast in terms of virtual particles in the quantum representation) are very problematical if taken to be the conveyors of real energy and momentum. The "jerk" approach is a way to sidestep this issue. For example, if you "jerk" an object from one place to another, you put a propagating "kink" into the gravity field.
Jim, you seem to be evading my point here. Following Wheeler, the "Jerk" makes the "kink" propagate to infinity as a 1/r FAR FIELD real transverse polarized photons and sure then we can use the Cramer Transaction quantum mechanically generalizing Wheeler-Feynman's classical electrodynamics. But you cannot do that for the NEAR FIELD of VIRTUAL MASSLESS QUANTA in general.
The INERTIAL REACTION FORCE when you step on a scale and Earth pushes up on you and you push back equally on Earth to obey Newton's 3rd Law of action-reaction is PURELY ELECTROMAGNETIC LONGITUDINALLY POLARIZED PHOTONS (Van del Wall molecular force) - trapped close to the surface of the scale and to the callouses on Zielinski's Feet! ;-) Gravity plays no DIRECT role at all here. By that I mean that the force Earth pushes on Zielinski is purely quantum electrical as is the equal and opposite force that Zielinski's Feet pushes on Earth.
Of course the common MAGNITUDE F^r(molecular EM force) of those two equal but opposite NEAR EM FIELD CONTACT FORCES is determined by the gravitational field Levi-Civita connection {rtt} in static LNIF coordinates for the exterior Schwarzschild solution as a good approximation.
The basic equation is Newton's 2nd Law
D^2x^u(Z)/ds^2 = F^u(Z)/m(Z)
where in this case Zielinski is in a kind of Godel Loop in which he is simultaneously test particle and detector.
Therefore, in order to keep r constant, the kinematical accelerations and velocities vanish in the above covariant 2nd order partial derivatives and we have
c^2{^rtt} ~ c^2rs(Earth)/r^2(1 - rs/r)^1/2 ~ F^r(molecular EM force)/m(Z)
JFW: Unless you can identify some other mass to be part of a quadrupole, the field of the object is a monopole field and as such an induction field, and making the propagating "kink" a radiating field is not obvious because it is not a quadrupole effect. Allowing da/dt terms (normally excluded in dynamics) in is a way of getting around this issue.
JS: Your sentence here is unintelligible and does not address by simple point that the virtual quanta that make up the near fields of both electromagnetism and gravity are confined close to their Tuv sources and never propagate to distant horizons unlike real massless quanta do. This is a qualitative difference. Therefore, since INERTIAL REACTION FORCES are EM NEAR FIELD VIRTUAL PHOTONS, it follows by pure logic, that you cannot explain inertial reaction forces with a Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Cramer argument. That only explains the RADIATION REACTION not the displacement of the pointer scale under Zielinski's bare feet. Bertlmann stole his socks! ;-)
JFW: But then there is the problem cast in sharp relief by Sciama's calculation: in a simple vector theory of gravity, if phi = c^2, the gravitomagnetic vector potential contributes to the gravitoelectric field to give a reaction force that depends only on a (that is dv/dt), not da/dt. Sciama's calculation is legitimate and straight-forward, if for very simple circumstances.
JS: Fiddle sticks. Sciama had a bad day when he came up with that model. It's not even wrong in my opinion for the several different reasons I have given that you have not squarely faced with rational detailed counter examples.
JFW: And by the way, the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces is the motivation for accepting Wheeler-Feynman. If you can explain everything in local terms, you have no need of action at a distance.
JS: Not true. WF were only trying to explain RADIATION REACTION. As I recall, they never tried to explain Newton's 3rd Law that way. If they did, show us where in their original papers they say that? I'll take a look. You may be able to use Wheeler-Feynman in the NEAR FIELD for two Casimir plates close to each other, but you certainly cannot explain a near field effect at a plate by a Cramer transaction with the cosmological event horizon of that Casimir plate. That's Astrology Cargo Cult Physics in my opinion.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JACK SARFATTI <
To: "
Subject: Re: Jim's common misconception of informal language about inertial for ces.
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:48:04 -0800
As Jim knows I use Wheeler - Feynman in my own theory. He is misusing Wheeler-Feynman here.
Wheeler-Feynman-Dirac gives the RADIATION REACTION FORCE ~ JERK OF EMITTING CHARGE for REAL PHOTONS.
SIMILARLY FOR REAL GRAVITY WAVES from JERKING masses.
NEAR FIELD PHOTONS AND NEAR FIELD GRAVITONS ARE VIRTUAL AND DO NOT REACH THE STARS!
Jim is confusing REAL QUANTUM JERK radiation reaction force with VIRTUAL QUANTUM inertial reaction ACCELERATION force as when Zielinski tells Earth to get out of his way when Earth pushes him off Earth's free float highway! ;-)
In the case of Mach's Principle the VIRTUAL GRAVITONS in coherent states of the Earth's near field do not make a Cramer transaction with distant matter. They are trapped localized to their Tuv(source)!
On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:28 PM,
Just catching up. Jack's 4 is wrong, because the gravitational interaction with cosmic matter is a "action-at-a-distance" a la Wheeler and Feynman process. So the interaction is with the far future, but appears to be instantaneous in the here and now. :-) This is the real reason why the "future hologram" is important.
On Jan 6, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Of course this assumes a frame of reference linked to your geodesic trajectory. In such a frame the earth is accelerating
in relation to your geodesic, pushing you off of it, and in such a frame you react against the earth. The latter is what I
would call "inertial reaction" in this context.
On 1/6/2012 2:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
That's what I mean as "inertial reaction force".
I think this is ass-backwards Jack. The earth *acts* on you, and you *react* against the earth.
That's exactly what I wrote Z. Please read more carefully.
I have consistently written that
1) Earth's electrical force pushes you off a timelike geodesic of the Earth's curvature field.
2) Newton's 3rd Law is LOCALLY obeyed in the sense of Tuv^;v(matter) = 0
i.e.
Tuv^;v(Earth to Z) + Tuv(Z to Earth) = 0
Yes, Z you push back on Earth.
3) However, UNLIKE NEWTONIAN STATICS (which still works IN ITS OWN TERMS) there is an UNBALANCED net electrical force on you that you experience as WEIGHT of (your rest mass)c^2rs(Earth)/r^2(1 - rs(Earth)/r)^1/2.
4) You cannot balance NEAR FIELD "gravity forces from distant matter on Jim's Mach thruster" with some LOCAL inertial reaction force at the thruster, nor can you say that Jim's thruster reacts back on the distant matter.
Because of time delays and the fact that universe expands and accelerates.