Electric Fields and Curved Space
Since we know that electric fields of rapid rise time and high voltage can curve space dramatically, and since we know that the same can be said of high dv/dt currents involved in creating magnetic fields, and since we know from relativity theory that gravitational field can also cause such curvatures…
Electric lines of force nowhere end, and they continue into the 4th dimension, IMO. …
Permeability and permittivity of free space can be altered by way of the quantum potential. Directly. It appears to me, that in order to alter the quantum potential, and thus the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum, we need to use symplectic E/M or higher dimensional E/M with a high dv/dt and a high V. It seems that this might be accomplished by the use of Clifford-Hopf (Rodin) coils, were the coils properly constructed and energized.
I think that there may be some hyperdimensionality involved in magnetic fields, related to the vortexial flux of aetheric particles which vortex is identically the magnetic field, where the aether particles themselves may be possessed of, perhaps various, hyperdimensional characteristics.
[Comment on list]:
“If gravity, or the “Curvature of Space”, is a function of the 4th & 5th dimensions, or both the permittivity and permeability of free space, could gravity itself be a sixth dimensional phenomena?”
[R. N. Boyd]:
Sounds like Heim, doesn’t it? Actually, it is quite possible that more than dimensions may be involved with gravity,
In the American Journal of Physics 39 (1971) 901-904, David Finkelstein showed that in “Unimodular Relativity” the Cosmological Constant is an unavoidable Lagrange Multiplier belonging to a constraint that expresses the existence of a Fundamental Volume Element of Spacetime Hypervolume at every point of Spacetime. Unimodular SL(4) is related to SU(2,2) which is isomorphic to the Conformal Group Spin(2,4).
In Tony Smith’s physics, the space D4, has 28 Real dimensions which correspond to: Gravity + Higgs + phase/U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3).
And his D5 / D4xU(1) has 8 Complex dimensions, describing SpaceTime.
His A3=D3 has 15 Real dimensions and describes Gravity + the Higgs mechanism.
(Let me say at this point that I’ve always instinctively disliked the concept of the Higgs boson, so for me, the story isn’t over yet in the above descriptions, although it makes perfect sense in Tony’s present system.)
“The Higgs mechanism requires “spontaneous symmetry breaking” of a scalar field potential whose minima are not zero, but which form a 3-sphere, SU(2). In particular, one real component of the complex Higgs scalar doublet is set to v / sqrt(2), where v is the modulus of the 3-sphere of minima, usually called, the #vacuum expectation value#. [Note from RNB: The vacuum expectation value is very important and directly relevant to our discussion of modification of the properties of the vacuum. Which concept is, itself, very insightful on your part.]
If the 3-sphere is taken to be the unit quaternions, then the “spontaneous symmetry breaking” requires choosing a (positive) real axis for the quaternionic or symplectic space.”
Now, SU(2), having three Real dimensions, corresponds to the “weak force”, and to A1=B1=C1, in Tony’s Lie algebra-based expression. SU(2) is also contained in the 28 dimensional D4, which shows there is a relation between gravity and the “weak force”, which heretofore has never been contemplated, to my knowledge.
[Comment on list]:
“More importantly, can [gravity] be manipulated by playing with the fourth and fifth dimensional phenomena that we currently have some ability to control?”
[R. N. Boyd]:
I think it may be possible with symplectic E/M. Now, I want to find out if it is possible to make pure symplectic E-fields, or symplectic B-fields. I have a sense that a pure symplectic E-field can produce some extraordinary events in our reality, if properly applied.
[Comment on list]:
“According [some theories of general relativity] (if I understand them correctly), gravity can be considered to be essentially the gradient of the combined permittivity and permeability of free space. This would also require a variable speed of light, in different portions of space, which would explain how gravity affects light.”
[R. N. Boyd]:
The view that the speed of light as a variable can be found in relativity theory, oddly enough. The equations work just as well if the speed of light is a variable, and the distance measurements are constant! (Look at the math! It’s just as plain as day. And simple.)
This makes sense to me, because I can’t see how, or why, any distance measurement can possibly be altered due to any velocity whatsoever. If the distance between point A and point B, is 1 meter, then at light speed, the distance #remains# one meter. In other words, one meter distance is one meter, #regardless# of velocity. So the interpretation of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is backward, in my opinion, in spite of the recent experiments which claimed to have observed L-F “contraction”.
These results, marvelously, can be explained just as well, if the speed of light varies over the measured course, and the distance measurement remains constant. The results look exactly the same, regardless of which view one takes! Fundamentally, the experiments proved nothing whatsoever regarding L-F contraction, given this perspective of a constant distance and a variable light-speed, IMO.
[Comment on List]:
“Could someone clarify an issue concerning Zero-Point Energy. If we cool an atom down to absolute zero, we stop all motion. Then how could an electron still maintain momentum? We would only know its position because it would have no momentum. Therefore I find it hard to picture the fact that it still oscillates.”
[R. N. Boyd]:
The problem is the portion of the immense energy of the vacuum which is coupled to the particle. While the energy density of 1cc of vacuum is on the order of 10 e72 gms, enough energy to create all the matter in the visible universe by E = mc^2, very little of this energy arrives at the standard elemental particle, as Graham has said.
And by the way, the ZPE is a well known quantum effect which results from vacuum fluctuations. This energy results in immense curvatures of space on the order of 10 e-66 cm^-2. These curvatures are much smaller than the Planck length, given by L = (h bar G/ c^3)^1/2 = 10 e-33 cm.
For me, the question here is, since we know that electric fields of rapid rise time and high voltage can curve space dramatically, and since we know that the same can be said of high dv/dt currents involved in creating magnetic fields, and since we know from relativity theory that gravitational field can also cause such curvatures, the question is, which of these fields is ultimately responsible for the extreme curvatures generated by the ZPE. (A paper by Whittaker circa 1895 addresses the curvature of space by both electric and magnetic fields. I long ago told Ark that I would provide this reference, but I haven’t found it yet. Still looking.)
In spite of the views which have the electron as a miniature black hole with a tremendous gravitational gradient at the surface of the particle, I am almost certain that the electron is not exclusively responsible for the ZPE vacuum fluctuations. If the ZPE flux were caused by a particle(s), then such particle(s) would need be immensely small and energetic, orders of magnitude greater than the electron, in either case.
Relevant here is that electric charge can be understood as electric lines of force trapped in a topology of a multiply connected space. [Wheeler and Maxwell.] Electric lines of force nowhere end, and they continue into the 4th dimension, IMO. I have brought it out before that charge can and does hyper-rotate, resulting in both “imaginary charge” [See: Hagan Kleinert at http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/ ], and “hypercharge”. Matti Pitkannen’s topological geometrodynamics are relevant here, it seems.
Perhaps the gentleman has heard of the “quantum foam”. Quantum foam is not a fiction, but is a fact measured from experimental observations. I suggest a search on the term “quantum foam”, will eliminate the gentleman’s concerns regarding ZPE.
[Additional Reference (Graham)]:
“It’s simple: The particle, (inc. electrons) is “Immersed” in the surrounding ZPF, which is unstable, being anisotropic, oscillating, and also changing “Phase” as it switches millions of times a second from the normal 4space to the N-dimensional hyperspace, and back, (transferring energy to the particles immersed in it).
The particle, even if it were at absolute zero, (impossible, as it is constantly absorbing energy from the ZPF) is also forced into movement by the energy transfer acting as a momentum transfer as well, also the other chaotic motions of the ZPF itself, so that’s what happens.
A little thought then brings the realization that the actual energy/momentum transfer from the ZPF to the particle/wave-packet/helicoid is very little, very, very little, which in turn tells us something about the actual energy density of the ZPF itself, (perhaps!!). (Think how very little energy there is in a particle at almost absolute zero, at least as far as phonon energy is concerned.)”