[General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Sat Apr 4 10:07:35 PDT 2015

Chip:

Re my current view is that energy reacts with space, causing distortions, which are fields.

Think of space as a ghostly elastic jelly. Then imagine you insert a hypodermic and inject more jelly. This results in a distortion of the surrounding jelly, and a gravitational field. You effectively added energy, but the jelly is space. Ergo at the fundamental level, space and energy cannot be distinguished. 

All: 

There’s been some interesting emails, apologies that I’ve been busy and have not chipped in much. But if I can say this in brief: 

IMHO if you grab hold of this ghostly elastic jelly with your right hand and twist, then reach round the side with your left hand and twist, the distortion you now have is an electromagnetic field. Only this analogy is somewhat back to front in that the tension needs to be replaced by pressure. A sinusoidal field variation going round and round a twisted double loop just right looks like a standing field. Experiment with sine-wave paper strips to grasp it. Electrons and positrons move linearly and rotationally like cyclones and anticyclones because they’re “dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space”. They aren’t spitting photons at one another. Hydrogen atoms do not twinkle, magnets don’t shine. However they exchange field in that the short-lived positronium atom doesn’t have much in the way of a field. The opposite twists tend to cancel, leaving only a pressure gradient. We call it a gravitational field.   

Regards
John D   

From: Chip Akins 
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 3:12 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Hi Richard

An energy quantum as a foundation for particles is quite an interesting concept.

My current feeling, however is that there is a more direct solution which does not require this sub particle.  The energy quantum may actually be the solution, but it seems to me that a simple, more complete solution emerges from the concept of fields being fundamental.  Or in John Macken’s way of stating it, space is fundamental.  My current view is that energy reacts with space, causing distortions, which are fields, and these fields cause forces which in turn interact with the fields, causing, quantization, confinement, and therefore oscillation.

Of course I am not ruling out your concept of an energy quantum, just pursuing another possible solution which currently seems more plausible. The fields only approach, has been quite fruitful, so I am becoming more convinced.  The nice thing about such an approach is the ability of that approach to define charge topologically, and perhaps explain everything form the same topological framework.  Part of my motivation in pursuing the fields only approach is emotional as well.  I want to know the underlying reasons for how everything works. Introducing an energy quantum into the solutions just moves the problem for me to something even smaller and causes another level of definition to be required. So until something forces me to think otherwise I am want to pursue the Occam’s razor guided argument that fields are fundamental and are simply the interaction of energy with space.

I have noticed however that in almost every field based model, it is possible to insert an “energy quantum” as a generator of the field and still have principally the same model. But I still find it more comfortable to assume that fields are generated simply by the reaction of energy with space.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:00 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

Chip,

  Since we are rightly looking for causes, I would say that neither charge nor field topology is fundamental, but that both are the effects of something more fundamental than either. An uncharged photon has topology but not charge. A charged photon has a different topology along with its charge, and has rest mass as well. But rest mass is confined energy and a cause must also be sought for this relative confinement of energy compared to that of an uncharged photon. I think an energy quantum (which comes in different varieties depending on the fundamental physical particle) is the cause of field topology, charge and rest mass, as well as other particle properties.

     Richard

  On Apr 3, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

  Hi John Macken

  It has been very interesting reading some of your work. It seems that each member of this discussion group brings a new perspective and therefore additional insight to the group.

  One of the background experimental artifacts addressed in models of the electron comprised of a “photon” is of course the annihilation reaction where an electron and positron release two gamma ray photons. The notion that the photon and the electron are both oscillations of spacetime is consistent with that as well. In the confined photon electron models which display topological charge, the photon is changed in the spin trajectory and orientation of its fields, so calling it a photon still, is taking some creative license which we all recognize.  Your way of stating the electron structure may be more accurate. Several of us have described various aspects of the fields in the electron and how they differ from the fields in the photon.  However, not only is space oscillating in these particles, those oscillations, the reaction of energy and space, create fields, as you have also addressed.  I want to spend a significant bit more time studying your work.  Thank you.

  Regarding the photon spin, orbital angular momentum, and polarization:  Do you have an idea of the photon’s internal field topology which can explain both spin and orbital angular momentum?

  Hi Richard

  As far as I can tell, one significant difference in your electron model and the models which display a charge due to the field topology of the confined photon, is the assumption that charge is elemental, versus the assumption that charge is topologically generated, otherwise the models a fairly similar.  I like the topologically generated view, because it not only yields a viable electron model, but it also posits a cause for charge. But until we can find a way to prove that concept with experiment it seems it remains a matter of personal preference? Do you have any thoughts about an experiment which might be able to prove or disprove the topological origin of charge?

  Chip

  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
  Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 5:35 PM
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
  Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

  Martin,

      A charged photon would not be a massless object, so you would be right. A charged photon would have mass as an electron, a muon or a tau. But a charged photon would have spin 1/2 hbar and would be a fermion (since it is an electron.)

            Richard

    On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

    Dear Richard,

    It just struck me that if you want to hold on to a charged photon as a concept, it should actually be a W-boson, another very illusive thing to describe. What I am saying is, that in case I would be right that there cannot be such a thing as a charged photon as a massless object,  indeed there is a massive object that is a spin 1 boson with charge. It may not have some double loop though…

    Well, just a thought to see if we can keep as much on board as possible…

    Best, Martin

    Dr. Martin B. van der Mark

    Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

    Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven

    High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)

    Prof. Holstlaan 4

    5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Tel: +31 40 2747548

    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
    Sent: vrijdag 3 april 2015 18:48
    To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
    Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

    John,

       I very much appreciate your welcoming and open approach to ideas that you may not agree with. You were very kind to include me in a group e-mail discussion last year about your recent article on the electron. This inspired me to study your and Martin’s 1997 electron model in more detail, and to review Vivian’s article as well as take a deeper look at Hestenes’ and Rivas' models of the electron as a helically moving light-speed electric charge, which came from their Dirac equation analyses. Then, in combination with rediscovering Dirac’s Nobel lecture quote about the electron moving at the speed of light but only being observable moving at less than the speed of light due to its small amplitude and high frequency motion, various ideas and results kind of synthesized and the relativistic charged photon model of the electron emerged. That would not have happened so soon (if at all) without my having had the opportunity to openly exchange views with you, Martin and Vivian and several of your other colleagues, which I am very grateful for. Chip’s work has also been very inspiring to me. I feel that we all may have found different pieces of, or at least clues to, the electron-photon puzzle.

         Richard

      On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:41 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

      My dear Chip,

      There is absolutely nothing to apologise about. I should apologise as well, if it comes to that, for singling that thing out (when there is much more in the general discussion we have all been having). It is only through discussion, and seeing what others make of an exposition, that one can find the flaws in ones own presentations. Provided the questioner is serious and thoughtful, and of good will, it is pretty much, for me, the most valuable thing there is!

      So thank you for getting the wrong end of the stick there. This particular one (together with Richard going the same way) - has been very valuable to me. The fault lies, if any, in our poor explanation of just what we are talking about - a fault I will try to rectify in future work.

      Regards, John.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
      Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:26 PM
      To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
      Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

      Hi John W and Martin

      I would like to apologize for referring to your model form the 1997 paper as based on a “charge ribbon”.

      That was clearly an erroneous oversimplification.  Will change the wording in my discussions and papers to try to avoid misrepresenting.

      Your work has been a tremendous inspiration and I do not want to misrepresent it in any way.

      Warmest Regards

      Chip

      From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
      Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:51 AM
      To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
      Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

      Chip:

      It is interesting, isn’t it? Here’s another one:

      With a small correction factor Δ related to binding energy, we can say this:

      <image001.gif>    = 1.60218  × 10-19 Coulombs                                    

      ε0 = 8.854187817 x 10-12

      4π = 12.56637061

      c3 = 26.94400241 x 1024

      With no correction for binding energy we can calculate electron charge as:

      √(ε0/4πc3) = √(8.854187817 × 10-12 / 338.5883200×1024)  =  √(2.6150304 × 10-38)  = 1.61710 × 10-19

      This is within 1% of the measured value of 1.60218 × 10-19 Coulombs.

      Regards

      John D

      From: Chip Akins

      Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:56 PM

      To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

      Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

      Hi John D

      Interesting stuff about Planck’s constant.

      2.42631 × 10-12 m is the physical wavelength of the confined photon in my electron model.

      Chip

      From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
      Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 3:43 AM
      To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
      Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

      John:

      The paper looks interesting. If you wish I’ll get back to you on it properly at a later date. Meanwhile take a look athttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066 and at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19084/ by a medical doctor called Andrew Worsley. He talks about “harmonic quintessence”, and stuff like this:

      Planck units are based on the properties of space. The Planck length is 1.616199×10−35 metres. It’s defined using the speed of light, Planck’s constant of action h, and the gravitational constant G. It can be written (using the reduced Planck’s constant) as ℓP=√(ћG/c³). We can replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value with appropriate dimensionality. The expression 4πn/√c³ still yields the Planck length. But if we now set n to the value 1 whilst retaining its dimensionality, then with a very small correction factor δ related to binding energy, the result is a different length. It is however familiar: 

      <image002.gif>= 2.42631 × 10-12 metres               

      Regards

      John D

      From: Vivian Robinson

      Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:49 AM

      To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

      Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

      John,

      You are in. I look forward to receiving your contributions to the structure of photons and electrons.

      Cheers,

      Vivian Robinson

      On 01/04/2015, at 9:26 AM, "chandra" <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:

        Welcome, John M.!

        I am glad to see that you are “on board” finally!

        Please, feel free to read up the “archived” discussions and present your views using brief quotations to remind the readers the connection to the earlier discussions.

        Chandra.

        Michael: Please, send out the instructions as to how to access the archived discussions.

        From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
        Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:25 PM
        To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
        Subject: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request

        Hello,

        I would like to join the Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Group.  I am John Macken and I presented a paper titled “Spacetime-based model of EM radiation” at the Nature of Light V conference in 2013.  I have also submitted an abstract to make another presentation at the 2015 conference.

        I am very interested models of the internal structure of an electron and other particles.  I have a paper that will be published next month which deals with particles, fields and forces. A preprint is available at:

        http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf    

        I believe that I can make significant contributions to your discussion group.

        Sincerely,

        John Macken

        _______________________________________________
        If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au
        <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
        Click here to unsubscribe
        </a>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com
      <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
      Click here to unsubscribe
      </a>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com
      <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
      Click here to unsubscribe
      </a>

      _______________________________________________
      If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
      <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
      Click here to unsubscribe
      </a>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
    _______________________________________________
    If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
    <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
    Click here to unsubscribe
    </a>

  _______________________________________________
  If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
  Click here to unsubscribe
  </a>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150404/6d7e3ec5/attachment-0001.htm>