Hi Jim, that's an extremely difficult question to answer. Though I have to say that it's the politics of it which cause me the most confusion. The blue eyed boys and girls of CERN are being rather canny about what they are up to. Lots of talk about becs; which I think is good; lots of talk about quantum entanglement producing "instantaneous" "events" of about thirty thousand times c; not so good! Then we have a whole bunch of experiments for the new machine to do with slow light. Then we have a great deal of talk about the lorentzian as it applies to gauge theory, note that Einstein hardly gets a mention though.
Walk into a room, clap your hands and say, "this is cool! Newton was right about the speed of gravity, Einstein was wrong but we still need to use the lorentzian, only now we are talking about vast amounts of gravitational energy." This might go down well with the general public. It won't go down well with funding bodies. They will immediately realise that their political enemies will raise a stink about the huge amounts of taxpayer's money that have been spent.
Raising the question, what would Newton have made of the lorentzian, is basically a political one. We can write the lorentzian in terms of refractive index. We get a very large number. So we write it up as (1 - 1 /n)^nx / 2 Pop back in a time machine to where Newton is sitting under his apple tree and show him the equation. He wouldn't jump up and say, wow! This is an equation thats older than tea.
Newton thought that the speed of gravity had to be infinite, that didn't mean that he liked it one jot. He loathed and detested it, he spent most of his life wrestling with the problem. (I once got an e mail form an otherwise clever man, saying that Newton lived in a time of sailing ships and horses. He didnt know that the speed of light was so fast, so he made the mistake of thinking gravity had to be instantaneous. Yeah right on, the inventor of calculus loses the plot someplace)
It's not a question of what would newton have said but what did he say? He could not have avoided looking at this equation, or a slight variant. He's looking at that number n as it approaches infinity. The idea that he didn't write a note about it vis a vis his gravity problem, is just too absurd for words. Somewhere in his notes, gathering dust at Oxford, is potential gold dust.
Back to the question: electromagnetic mass is anything up to the speed of light, gravitational mass is anything beyond that. So how can we deduce anything from something that by definition we cannot even see?
The first point is that we must have some idea of just how fast the speed of gravity is. On this board we say that it's at least twenty billion times c. I say its faster, I say that h = c^2 / b^2 where b is the speed of gravity.
This speed of gravity gives us a gravitational energy value for an electron, lets say, which is equal to its electromagnetic frequency! Thats rather neat.
The gravitational lorentzian will barely register any mass increase at the speed of light. Not that I believe this happens anyway. What we would have is a redistribution of potential and kinetic energy.
We store energy in a particle by making it spin. An electron's angular velocity is c and its angular momentum is h. Its radius is the Compton wavelength. Its gravitational energy needs to be stored someplace, we store it inside the Schwarzschild radius; note that everything has a Schwarzschild radius. This energy will have an angular velocity of b and an angular momentum of 1 (the number one to allow frequency matching, changes are going to be changes in wavelength) To stop it from imploding we give it a negative refractive index. The energy profile is now a w shape rather than a v shape. To then stop it from exploding we surround it by displacement particles, call them the higgs or call them vacuum lattice aether particles. These are going to be inside out. Their electromagnetic mass is going to be at the Schwarzschild radius.
There will be some gravitational mass that shows up, we simply cannot see the rest, because its inside of a neg r.i. volume. We want E = 1/2 m'c^2 + 1/2m"b^2 The gravitational mass, seen, will then be m = 6.03E-64 = electron mass times h. Now that mass is the rest mass of a compton wavelength photon.
One last word. Inside the Schwarzschild radius of a sun, there's a negative refractive index; that's if I'm right about all this; It won't behave like a spherical lens. It will behave like a concave lens. Rotate a planet round this sun and well have a core shape that looks like a discarded apple core. The north and south top faces of this wouldn't be black holes but they would have odd properties.
