[General] Answers to Some Objections

Mon Apr 20 08:43:45 PDT 2015

Dear John M,

Thank you for clarifying some issues. Comments below.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:26 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
>
>
> I do not understand your comment “I spent a lot of time trying to make
> the electric dipole model of the photon work. I did not succeed.”  There
> are dipole waves in spacetime which modulate volume and the rate of time.
> For example a wave maximum might be defined as the portion of a dipole wave
> in spacetime that expands volume and slows the rate of time, while the wave
> minimum would do the reverse. This is not to be confused with an electrical
> dipole.
>

I recognize the problem now. I suspect that I would have problems with any
type dipole representation of the photon in 3-D. This includes density
variation dipoles. However, dipoles in 4-D may work well. (That is my
present model.)

If the dipole oscillates along the time axis, local time slows in both
directions. Does/can anything speed time up?

>
>
> Groups of charged particles can have an “electrical dipole moment” which
> has units of Coulomb-meter. Photons do not have an “electrical dipole
> moment”.  Also, electromagnetic waves do not produce a modulation of the
> rate of time or modulate total volume.  If they did, then EM radiation
> would produce an oscillating rate of time gradient.
>

I think that all of these statements are suppositions - and maybe
incorrect. If photons have E-fields, they have electric dipoles
(multipoles?). If photons have field-energy gradients, they will distort
space and therefore have variations along the time axis (just enough to
provide self-focusing sufficient for a soliton). I don't know enough about
4-D volumes to comment on them . However, I expect that local volumes are
modulated by the photon's field oscillations. On the other hand, I have no
idea about what is a dipole moment about the time axis. Unit analysis might
teach us how to form one.

> All rate of time gradients produce a gravitational acceleration.  For
> example, a gravitational acceleration of 1 m/s2 corresponds to a gradient
> of 1.11x10-17 s/s/m (seconds per second per meter).  Therefore, if EM
> radiation produced a modulation of the rate of time, neutral particles such
> as neutrons would oscillate when EM radiation passed their location.  In
> fact, waves that modulate the rate of time are forbidden on the macroscopic
> scale because they would produce a violation of the conservation of
> momentum.  Dipole waves in spacetime are permitted to modulate the rate of
> time because even though they displace neutral particles, I show in my book
> that the maximum displacement they can produce is equal to Planck length.
> This is allowed by quantum mechanics.
>

I would expect a much greater local change in time to provide the gradient
in refractive index (GRIN) required for self -focusing of a photon and
orders of magnitude greater yet to produce a wormhole and confine a photon
as an electron-positron pair.

>
>
> If you have an analysis photons based on my ideas that is not working out,
> I would like to see it.
>

Your ideas may provide the mathematical details needed to validate my model.

Andrew
__________________________________________

>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 18, 2015 12:41 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Answers to Some Objections
>
>
>
> Dear John M,
>
> I spent a lot of time trying to make the electric dipole model of the
> photon work. I did not succeed. However, in studying the nature of
> interference effects, I found that the variations in *electric *potential
> were in time, not in space. Thus, I believe that a slight change in concept
> might make a big difference in your results.
>
> We normally think of current as dq/dt = (dq/dx)(dx/dt) because "charge is
> indivisible." The recognition that charge is only a resonant condition of
> *E*-field (e.g., the photon) allows us to talk of electric potentials
> independent of unique charges. They can be variable in time or space. This
> is part of the 'structure' of photons that Hudgins and I have been working
> on with a study of the interference effects in standing waves.
>
> Can your spacetime model incorporate the dipoles with variable charges
> stationary in space but oscillating in time (i.e., reversing charge-type
> sinusoidally)?
>
> Some other comments below:
>
> Andrew
>
> _ _ _
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:31 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
>
>
> Over the last week I have generated a lot of criticism which until now I
> have ignored.  It is not possible to answer every objection in a short post
> because a one line objection can take several paragraphs to rebut.
> Therefore, I have selected some of the most critical comments from David
> M., Chip and John D to attempt to set the record straight.
>
>
>
> *David Mathes says*: “*Impedance is frequency dependent*. There are other
> dependencies as well but frequency plays a prominent role.”  This is
> correct for acoustics, but not for waves in spacetime. There are several
> important differences between waves in spacetime and acoustics.  For
> example, the amplitude of acoustic waves is usually given as the
> displacement of particles which has units of length (L).  For unit
> compatibility, it is necessary to express acoustic impedance with units of
> M/TL2 (mass/time length2).  Therefore, one type of acoustic impedance is *Za
> = ρc*a where *c*a is acoustic speed of sound.  This has the correct
> units.  The amplitude of gravitational waves is often given as ΔL/L, but
> the more accurate expression is ΔL/*λ* which is dimensionless and
> expresses the maximum strain (maximum slope).  In this case the impedance
> term must have units of M/T for compatibility.  The impedance of spacetime Z
> s = c3/G has the correct units to be paired with a dimensionless
> amplitude term.
>
>
>
> With this as background, it is now possible to answer the criticism that
> impedance is frequency dependent. Acoustic impedance is somewhat frequency
> dependent because the acoustic speed of sound (*c*a) has some frequency
> dependence (*Za = ρc*a).  However, waves in spacetime have no frequency
> dependence because the speed of light is the same for all frequencies (*Zs
> = c3/G*).
>
>
>
> To support your argument here: I believe that frequency dependence always
> is a result of an absorption (resonance). Space has none. However, the
> singular limit of light velocity to c might introduce something worth
> studying in that context.
>
>
>
> *John D. says*: “Waves move through space, not spacetime.”.  It is true
> that gravitational waves distort only the spatial dimensions, not the time
> dimension.  If a gravitational wave propagates past a spherical volume of
> spacetime, the spherical volume will be distorted to becoming a vibrating
> ellipsoid.  The ellipsoid has no change on volume compared to the original
> spherical volume because an elongation of one dimension is accompanied by
> an offsetting contraction of another dimension.  There is no change in
> volume and the gravitational wave does not modulate the rate of time.
> There is a slight effect on the rate of time due to the fact that the
> gravitational wave has energy density, but there is no modulation of the
> rate of time at the frequency of the gravitational wave.
>
>
>
> If you read my ‘foundation” article you will see that I am building the
> entire universe using “dipole waves in spacetime”, not gravitational waves.
> I explain in this article that dipole waves in spacetime are forbidden on
> the macroscopic scale described by general relativity, but they are
> permitted by quantum mechanics on the sub-microscopic scale governed by
> quantum mechanics.  The article explains that dipole waves modulate both
> the rate of time and the space dimensions. These are actually the most
> fundamental type of wave that could exist in spacetime.  The modulation of
> both space and the rate of time makes it possible for my model to generate
> the curvature of spacetime produced by a fundamental particle. For a
> fundamental particle, this equation is accurate to better than 1 part in 10
> 40.  Furthermore, there are other nonlinear terms and other
> considerations that I believe will eventually result in generating the
> complete equations of general relativity.  Therefore, dipole waves in
> spacetime modulate both space and the rate of time.
>
>
>
> *Chip says*: “I find that using gravitational waves, … (has a) problem.
> That is it seems to be building on a still undefined and unknown
> foundation. … If gravity waves travel faster than c for example, it
> completely changes the “stiffness” of space, impedance of space, and the
> whole foundation.”
>
>
>
> Gravitational waves do exist even if they are very hard to detect.
> Gravitational waves transfer energy and angular momentum. In 1993 the Nobel
> Prize was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor for the proof that a
> binary neutron star system was slowing down its rotation because it was
> emitting gravitational waves. The amount of slowing was *exactly* the
> amount predicted by general relativity. The emission of gravitational waves
> produces a retarding force on the rotating binary stars, thus producing an
> observable slowing of the rotation (loss of energy and angular momentum).
> If it was possible to reverse the direction of these gravitational waves,
> the gravitational waves would return energy and angular momentum to the
> binary neutron star system.
>
>
>
>  Could you, or anyone else clarify this issue for me. A 1/r potential
> provides stable orbits with kinetic energy, KE, equal to 1/2 the absolute
> value of potential energy, PE. Thus, KE = |PE|/2. To radiate waves and drop
> to a lower stable orbit, the orbiting body must both lose PE and gain KE.
> The change in angular momentum can go either way. Nevertheless, the
> increase in KE and the reduction in orbital radius requires that the
> orbital frequency increase. If rotation slowing is a fact, then something
> else must be happening. Is the reference to rotation frequency the rotation
> of the stars and not of the orbital frequency?
>
>
>
> Gravitational waves also propagate at the speed of light.  If they
> propagated faster than c, the universe would have many different laws than
> it actually has.  You are welcome to doubt that gravitational waves
> propagate at c, but you will be forced to doubting many aspects of
> physics.
>
>
>
> I obviously have skipped many questions.  For example, John D. has 9
> objections.  I believe that I can answer any objection that I have seen,
> but it is necessary to be selective since the answer is much longer than
> the objection.  Therefore, if there is a particularly important objection
> that I have not addressed, please state it in the next email.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20150420/8563b48e/attachment-0001.htm>