11–20 of 42 posts
This should have a (2019), shouldn't it?
Personally, I don't want to see any "(2019)" until half of 2020 is gone. Another rule could be to add it for articles that are more than one year old but this article is only two months old.
I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. I've not read the article, just the abstract. Doing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this[1] where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. Specifically the gamma^3 factor ... I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. Though 2 add…
It appears the current article is claiming the the inertial / gravitational mass of certain particles is gamma^3 times the rest mass of relativistic neutrinos that comprise them. Or something.
I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. I've not read the article, just the abstract. Doing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this[1] where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. Specifically the gamma^3 factor ... I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. Though 2 add…
Refer to section 10 of the Einstein 1905 paper - Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron. The longitudinal mass is theorized to increase as gamma^3. This was first introduced by Lorentz. Relativistic mass is rather controversial, as can be seen by referring to Wikipedia. It appears the current article is claiming the the inertial / gravitational mass of certain particles is gamma^3 times the rest mass of relativi…
How common is it for a physics theory to be able to compute so many quantities without fudge factors to make it all work out? I'm not a physicist, so I'm currently imagining this could be quite significant. Is that how physicists are reading it? Also, can any physicists comment on whether this is a top journal.
All standard particles are composed of AnimAlMuppet's Magic Particles (AMMPs). AMMPs each have 1 eV of mass. An electron, for example, is made up of 511,000 AMMPs. We calculate a mass of 511 keV, in good agreement with experiment.
Note well: I have no idea if these people are doing something like that. All I've seen is the abstract.
This should have a (2019), shouldn't it?
Personally, I don't want to see any "(2019)" until half of 2020 is gone. Another rule could be to add it for articles that are more than one year old but this article is only two months old.
I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. I've not read the article, just the abstract. Doing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this[1] where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. Specifically the gamma^3 factor ... I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. Though 2 add…
They should. The source of gravity in relativity is not relativistic mass, as this paper appears to be claiming. It is the stress-energy tensor.
Also, the reference to "Newton's relativistic gravitational law" in the abstract looks bogus to me. There is no such thing. You can't just plug relativistic mass into Newton's gravitational law. Any GR textbook will discuss this.
The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment. A reformulation of the Dirac theory shows that the zitterbewegung need not be attributed to interference between positive and negative energy states as originally proposed by Schroedinger. Rather, it provides a physical interpretation for the complex phase factor in the Dirac wave function generally. Moreover, it extends to a coherent physical interpretation of the entire Dirac theory, and it implies a zitterbewegung interpretation for the Schroedinger theory as well.
Couldn't find it on arxiv, but it is referenced in another of their current articles here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09760 Very novel :-/ edit: They have published a book. One can read the preview on Amazon to get a feel for it: https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Boh... They aren't attracting any citations.
Not sure what you mean, but just in case: the "2001" part in "2001.09760" is two-digit year followed by two-digit month, i.e. January 2020.