The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: thorough review of perpetual-motion, rest-mass, and whether light
waves travel forever #1230 New Physics #1350 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
thorough review of perpetual-motion, rest-mass, and whether light
waves travel forever #1230 New Physics #1350 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 15, 2013 3:36 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

One thing I am interested in doing in the 6th edition of this textbook
is editing and revising, however I do come across a problem of lack of
full memory of what has to be edited out since my research often
overturns earlier positions. Much of the double transverse wave theory
is wrong in parts. So to help in that future edition I thought I may
remind myself of what needs removing in the last pages. The New
Physics will end at page 1300 or before, but I thought of a even
better approach when I take on the 6th edition, is to simply start at
page 1300, and work backwards, and then start the revision. I doubt
that any novelist or historian has done that with their text, and
perhaps that is only useful to a scientist revising his text. You see,
the trouble with starting at the beginning, may lead to a repeat
mistake of an idea that was abandoned later on. But starting at the
end, I retain what was concluded and when I reach the ideas that were
abandoned, I delete them altogether.

But let me get to the topic on my mind today. There is still a turmoil
of the concepts of rest-mass, perpetual motion, and does a light wave
travel forever. And I believe that physicists of the last century
never had a firm grasp of any answers for these questions.

Earlier I discussed how perpetual motion is the essence of Quantum
Mechanics circa March of 2012. And I did that long discussion before I
had the Maxwell Equations as the axiom set over all of physics, as can
be seen in this older post.

--- quoting old post ---
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Mar 23 2012 12:40 am
Subject: Quantum Mechanics starts with the Maxwell Eq. Chapt13.3
Maxwell Equations as axiom set of New Physics #312 New Physics #432
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Mar 22, 11:21 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
- Show quoted text -

So how do I do that-- derive discreteness starting from "perpetual
motion" whereas I cannot derive "perpetual motion" starting from
This is where my math training comes in handy. ?I have to note the
opposite of discrete is a continuum ?of energy.
--- end quote ---
But here in Feb 2013, almost a year later, and almost a thousand pages
longer, I have not resolved that problem in my own mind. Is perpetual
motion innate in the Maxwell Equations since the Maxwell Equations are
the axioms of physics and that Quantum Mechanics is a subset of the
Maxwell Equations, yet perpetual motion is essential for Quantum
So, how do we have perpetual motion in the Maxwell Equations?

Now, I maybe wrong on this, but it seems to me that if we accept the
Maxwell Equations, we automatically accept the moving bar magnet in
Faraday's law and automatically accept the moving current in Ampere's
law, so that we have perpetual motion. Without that motion, being
perpetual, we have missing 2 of the 4 Maxwell Equations.

Now, the way Quantum Mechanics arrives at perpetual motion is the
history of QM in the early 1900s when Bohr spoke of the Bohr atom and
needed Planck's constant to have his electron perpetual motion orbit a
proton in hydrogen atom. So in Bohr started quantum mechanics by
claiming the electron had to be in perpetual motion and thus a new
science subject was borne-- quantum mechanics and discrete electron

But looking back now, we see that Bohr never needed to create a new
subject, but rather, instead, have realized that the Maxwell Equations
covered perpetual motion for the two of the four Maxwell Equations are
based upon a perpetual motion.

Now I have done a fair amount of reading of physics history, and what
happened in the thirty years from 1900 to 1930, was an outright
rejection of the Maxwell Equations as the Quantum Mechanics was given
all the attention and thus the Maxwell Equations were seen as
"Classical Physics" and stained and flawed physics. But therein lies
the trouble, is that over 99 percent of the physicists of the 20th
century had little to no logical abilities or acumen, they were number
crunchers, not with an ability to think logically. So instead of
taking a good look at the Maxwell Equations, they up and dumped the
equations as being old fashioned as Newton's laws and ready for the
trash heap.

But another concept that causes turmoil, especially for me, is rest-
mass. I will not rest, until I have solved this prickly and thorny
concept of rest-mass. Rest-mass flies in the face of perpetual motion.
We are told an electron is in perpetual motion around a atom nucleus
and we are told atoms are in perpetual motion, yet why would atoms or
electrons have rest mass as if they come to total rest with no longer
perpetual motion. When you ask any professor of physics this line of
questioning, even Nobel prizewinners of physics, they never give you a
reasonable answer, but duck the question, because they simply do not
know the answer and never really gave it long thought. They are part
of the 99 percent or more lacking logic to do physics.

So what is the answer as to this "rest mass" concept and perpetual
motion that is essential for physics? It could be an easy resolution.
It could be that we just made a stupid and silly name for something
"rest-mass" when we should have called it "ground mass" or "minimal
mass". And forever deleted the term "rest" out of physics.

I do not know when in the history of physics was the term "rest mass"
borne? Perhaps in the 1800s someone used the term "rest mass" and it
stuck with us today. If they had called it sex-mass or porno-mass, the
science community would have removed it long time ago, but with giving
it the name "rest", the logically feeble physicists keep on using it.

In my posts of a few days ago, I have outlined a possible way of
describing rest-mass as a circular closed loop of a traveling wave
front of a particle. So that a electron has a rest-mass because the
electron is a closed loop of its leading edge wave front. Here we
depict a photon before it pair produces:

and when that photon pair produces it forms two closed loops at its
leading edges:

one of those O is a positron and the other O is a electron

So when a transverse wave leading edge starts to loop around into a
closed loop, that loop is rest mass and the entire loop travels in
Space with momentum.

A photon that does not form a closed loop at its leading edges, has no
rest mass.

Now perhaps that answers the problem, but I feel it does not answer it
fully. And I feel that the source of the problem is that we have given
it a ludicrous, stupid and silly name of "rest", when it should be
called "minimal mass" or "potential mass" or
"ground mass". Now in energy we have potential and kinetic energy, so
perhaps the very best term we should give it is Potential Mass, and
here the concept is that
some of the energy of the photon's transverse wave has converted over
from kinetic energy to potential mass.

Which brings up a major issue of physics that the physicists of the
last century totally ignored. The question is whether light waves or
photons travel forever, that is never come to rest and is probably
tied up with the misconception of "rest mass".

Here again, as I keep saying throughout this text, we have to go back
to the Maxwell Equations for answers. And the question is, do photons
ever come to rest
or do they travel forever? The implications are huge for they involve
not only physics but astronomy where we have the notion that the light
from galaxies of 13 billion light years away are seen yet the night
sky for the most part seems very much to be black night sky. If light
travels forever and never gets tired light and light has no rest-mass,
then the night sky should not be so dark. Now I am not just talking
about the intensity or dimming of light as we see a flashlight dimming
with distance. What I am talking about is whether light waves, even
though they travel at the speed of light, whether light waves come to
some lower and lower frequency and finally abruptly come to a halt. If
true, has huge implications for astronomy because at some distance
from Earth, we just cannot see any more galaxies because their EM
radiation has halted before it reaches Earth. And it would mean that
where we thought we see galaxies some 13 billion light years away are
in fact just 3 billion light years away and no further. It would
compress the distances to galactic mappings by Juric and Jarrett to a
fraction of the distances their atlas is compiling.
So what does the Maxwell Equations say about light waves?


Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.