[General] Answers to Some Objections

Mon Apr 20 09:47:17 PDT 2015

Andrew/John,
IMHO the question of dipole stability will lead to moving to at least a quadrupole (sic) modeling in 4D and eventually - as noted - multipole modeling. I wouldn't give up on dipoles yet though. It's just from experience that we end up using quadrupoles for stability reasons.
While it may be challenging work, multipole modeling in 5D may be attempted. The question of the 5th D is open although the candidates for me are energy density (x, y, z, t, E(d)) and time dimensions (x, y, z, t1, t2). 
When to go to a 5D model? The assumption is that the 4D model investigation is nearly exhausted. The difficulty with 4D models is that we typically vectorize the results for practical reasons. The adventurous will run both 4D and 5D models at the same time. 
One could invoke Wheeler-Feynman and create a three time approach (x, y, z, t1, t2, t3) where past and future both act at the same time. However, it's usually less stressful to focus on two time dimensions with present (t1) and either past (-t2) or future (t2).
A few references that may be of interest...
"Optical dipole trapping of neutral atoms"https://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/nawi.inst.220/lehre/Atomphysik_SS2008/9902072v1.pdf

    MACH’S PRINCIPLE AND HIGHER-DIMENSIONAL DYNAMICS    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.6036.pdf

Search: dimensions + 5D + timehttp://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+dimensions+AND+5d+time/0/1/0/all/0/1

      From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 8:43 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Answers to Some Objections

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 = ρca where ca 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 Zs = 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 (ca) has some frequency dependence (Za = ρca).  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 1040.  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. 
_______________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150420/b52404ab/attachment-0001.htm>