On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Russell Anderson wrote:
Inertia is solely related to NET CHARGE, NOT MASS, or amount or density of material.
Leptons and quarks all carry internal charges (EM, weak, strong).
We need a non-gravity charge to move massive test particles off zero g-force timelike geodesics.
A purely neutral massive test particle cannot be pushed off a timelike geodesic. Therefore, its "inertia" = "rest mass" could not be measured in principle in the test particle approximation. Of course, even a test particle is a source of curvature, but by definition, it's too small to be measured with current technology.
Q. Can we have a zero rest mass charge?
A. Yes, quarks and leptons, for example, are zero rest mass in the pre-inflation false vacuum with zero Higgs field vacuum superconductivity.
Q. What about the classical charge static energy?
A. It must be cancelled by the negative gravity static energy - maybe.
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:47:16 -0800
Subject: Re: Amateur's confusions on the meanings of "gravity" and "inertia" (Dr. Quantum)
So what you try to call my "amateur's confusion"
I did not say you were the "amateur" Z. ;-)
is in fact the contemporary understanding of the GTR, as adopted
by leading specialists in the field. It was Einstein who was confused about this, not me. Einstein initially held
that according to GTR, inertia would not operate in the absence of gravitational sources. Einstein's own "amateur
confusion" on this point was cleared up by de Sitter in 1916-17.
Did he? He may have been thinking of what Wheeler later called "geons" i.e. test particles as singularities in the metric guv field. Today we call them point topological defects with quantized surrounding areas similar to vortices with quantized circulations and vorticity fluxes (Stoke's theorem). There was the work with Infeld deriving the geodesic test particle equation from the field equation with a point singularity in guv.
If anyone is interested, a short article by Michael Jannsen on the Einstein-de Sitter debate is available here:
But spacetime curvature *does* determine the inertial trajectories of free test objects,
Yes, that's what I said.
which are the reference trajectories (spacetime geodesics) for the dynamics.
Yes, that's what I said.
So while what you say is correct, it
doesn't alter the fact that in the GTR, even in the complete absence of a gravitational field, the resistance
of a test object to forced deviations from the inertial trajectories determined by the spacetime geometry
*is* proportional to the inertial mass (subject to the appropriate SR corrections); inertia still operates
*even in the complete absence of matter-induced gravitation*.
Of course it doesn't alter that fact, indeed THAT was my main point! Inertia has nothing to do with gravity.
When you step on a scale, your weight is really the electrical force preventing you from free-falling off the ladder (so to speak).
Even though you are electrically neutral there are the Van der Waals forces etc from charge separations etc.
Definitions of Van der Waals forces on the Web:
In physical chemistry, the van der Waals force (or van der Waals interaction), named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, is the attractive or repulsive force between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds or to the electrostatic ...
after JD van der Waals, 1873): atomic and molecular attraction forces arising from dipole effects (between permanent dipoles), induction effects (between permanent and induced dipoles) and dispersion effects (between induced dipoles); see also Israelachvili (1991): Chap. ...
a weak attraction between molecules.
This interaction is due to induced dipole-dipole interaction. Even if the particles don't have a permanent dipole, fluctuations of the electron density gives rise to a temporary dipole, meaning that van der Waals forces are always present, although possibly at a much lower magnitude than others.
Of course one could expand the meaning of "gravitational field" such that even the Minkowski metric
qualifies, but isn't that like redefining "vegetable" to include ketchup?
Rovelli says exactly that. "Zero" is a number and a "Zero gravity curvature field" is still a solution of Ruv = 0 and it has non-zero quantum gravity fluctuations. Also it is unstable and can quantum tunnel into a geon with curvature and still Tuv = 0.
About 55,400 results (0.27 seconds)
Phys. Rev. 97, 511 (1955): Wheeler - Geons
by JA Wheeler - 1955
Geons. John Archibald Wheeler Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. Received 8 September 1954 ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.97.511 - Similar
Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 480 (1957): Power and Wheeler - Thermal Geons
by EA Power - 1957 - Cited by 21 - Related articles
Thermal Geons. Edwin A. Power Department of Mathematics, University College ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.480 - Similar
Show more results from aps.org
Amazon.com: Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in ...
12 reviews - $10.85 - In stock
Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam, in John Wheeler's science autobiography. To the rest of us, getting excited over the properties of atomic nuclei and the ...
www.amazon.com › ... › Professionals & Academics › Scientists - Cached - Similar
Geon (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nonetheless, Wheeler speculated that there might be a relationship between microscopicgeons and elementary particles. This idea continues to attract some ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics) - Cached - Similar