George Hammond
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
Some time ago I innocently inquired as to:
"Why C would be an invariiant for all
observers regardless of their velocity?"
since Relativity provides no physicall mechanism for
this, but merely "postulates" it.
At that time I (naively) suggested it was because of ACCELERATION
(since no two particles can have different velocities unless they
were differentially accelerated somewhere in the past)
... and suggested that ACCELERATION is the causal mechanism behind
the Lorentz Contraction and the Time Dilation and thus explains
"physically" why the speed of light is an invarient.
LO AND BEHOLD...........
I now find out that this intuition is in fact a veritible cottage
industry and has been for 10 or 15 years!
A celebrated "physical" mechanism for Inertia has been discovered
by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff in 1994:
Physical review A 1994:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/PRA94.pdf
Annelen der Physik 2005:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
This topic has recently obtained tremendous coverage in the literature
(Physical Review A 1994, Annalen der Physik 2005, etc.)... and is
now known as the "Vacuum Field theory of Inertia".
According to this theory, "Inertial mass" is caused by an
"electirc drag force" caused by matter being ACCLERATED
throught the "Zero Point Fluctions" of the vacuum.
This theory ostensibly explains the Lorentz Contraction, Time
Dilation, Inertia, and according to Sakharov ultimately even
Einstein's Field Equations simply as an interaction between matter
moving through the "zero point fluctions" of the vacuum!
Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff have actually "derived" F=ma
from the ZPF!
Some people think it might even replace the Higgs mechanism
of the Standard Model for explaining mass!
At any rate... I'm sure not alone in my intuition that
"acceleration" is the cause of the speed of light being
invarient to velocity... apparently there are hundreds of
scientists now working on the ZPF theory... which apparently
originated with Andrei Sakharov, Zeldovich.. and even Einstein
suspected it as early as 1910 in papers with Abraham
and Stern... and of course historically Lorentz in his ether theory
of the Lorentz Contraction.
Is there any expert here who has a handle on the "offical status"
of this (now widely discussed) ZPF theory of Mass.. and can they tell
me how this theory meshes with QFT and GR.?
1. Can the "stochastic EM-ZPF theory" be reconciled
with QFT by calling it a "semiclassical" EM theory?
2. Is there any chance GR can be "derived" from this
semiclassical ZPF theory?
3. Does EM-ZPF relate QFT to GR.. and if so why isn't
this a major path to Quantum Gravity?
4. Is this considered the explanation of 'Mach's Principle"?
5. Is this a (semiclassical) causal mechanism of the Lorentz
Contraction?
6. Is this a vindication of Lorentz's "ether" theory?
7. Is this considered a serious challenge to the "Higg's mechanism"?
------------------------------------------------
Can you please give me the "low down" on what is the majority opinion
of the "ZPF theory of Inertia" and where it stands vis a vis
QFT, GR, QM, and current Quantum Gravity theories?
This ZPF theory of Inertia seems to have "come out of the blue",
and seems unrelated to any other major branch of Physics?
-------------------------------------------------
Are we now to consider that there is a "semiclassical"
explanation of GR from electromagnetic theory that doesn't
require QM other than to "postulate" the existence of
the zero point field? Is that what this is.. a "semiclassical
theory of Gravity"?
Is this a "semiclassical" explanation of GR, as opposed to a full
blown Quantum explanation of GR?
Is this a major ground tremor of Quantum Gravity... or is this a
flash in the pan?
"Why C would be an invariiant for all
observers regardless of their velocity?"
since Relativity provides no physicall mechanism for
this, but merely "postulates" it.
At that time I (naively) suggested it was because of ACCELERATION
(since no two particles can have different velocities unless they
were differentially accelerated somewhere in the past)
... and suggested that ACCELERATION is the causal mechanism behind
the Lorentz Contraction and the Time Dilation and thus explains
"physically" why the speed of light is an invarient.
LO AND BEHOLD...........
I now find out that this intuition is in fact a veritible cottage
industry and has been for 10 or 15 years!
A celebrated "physical" mechanism for Inertia has been discovered
by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff in 1994:
Physical review A 1994:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/PRA94.pdf
Annelen der Physik 2005:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
This topic has recently obtained tremendous coverage in the literature
(Physical Review A 1994, Annalen der Physik 2005, etc.)... and is
now known as the "Vacuum Field theory of Inertia".
According to this theory, "Inertial mass" is caused by an
"electirc drag force" caused by matter being ACCLERATED
throught the "Zero Point Fluctions" of the vacuum.
This theory ostensibly explains the Lorentz Contraction, Time
Dilation, Inertia, and according to Sakharov ultimately even
Einstein's Field Equations simply as an interaction between matter
moving through the "zero point fluctions" of the vacuum!
Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff have actually "derived" F=ma
from the ZPF!
Some people think it might even replace the Higgs mechanism
of the Standard Model for explaining mass!
At any rate... I'm sure not alone in my intuition that
"acceleration" is the cause of the speed of light being
invarient to velocity... apparently there are hundreds of
scientists now working on the ZPF theory... which apparently
originated with Andrei Sakharov, Zeldovich.. and even Einstein
suspected it as early as 1910 in papers with Abraham
and Stern... and of course historically Lorentz in his ether theory
of the Lorentz Contraction.
Is there any expert here who has a handle on the "offical status"
of this (now widely discussed) ZPF theory of Mass.. and can they tell
me how this theory meshes with QFT and GR.?
1. Can the "stochastic EM-ZPF theory" be reconciled
with QFT by calling it a "semiclassical" EM theory?
2. Is there any chance GR can be "derived" from this
semiclassical ZPF theory?
3. Does EM-ZPF relate QFT to GR.. and if so why isn't
this a major path to Quantum Gravity?
4. Is this considered the explanation of 'Mach's Principle"?
5. Is this a (semiclassical) causal mechanism of the Lorentz
Contraction?
6. Is this a vindication of Lorentz's "ether" theory?
7. Is this considered a serious challenge to the "Higg's mechanism"?
------------------------------------------------
Can you please give me the "low down" on what is the majority opinion
of the "ZPF theory of Inertia" and where it stands vis a vis
QFT, GR, QM, and current Quantum Gravity theories?
This ZPF theory of Inertia seems to have "come out of the blue",
and seems unrelated to any other major branch of Physics?
-------------------------------------------------
Are we now to consider that there is a "semiclassical"
explanation of GR from electromagnetic theory that doesn't
require QM other than to "postulate" the existence of
the zero point field? Is that what this is.. a "semiclassical
theory of Gravity"?
Is this a "semiclassical" explanation of GR, as opposed to a full
blown Quantum explanation of GR?
Is this a major ground tremor of Quantum Gravity... or is this a
flash in the pan?