[General] Space time and interaction
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 05:32:12 PDT 2015
Dear John W
Thank you for explaining so carefully. I must apologize for using an
extreme and somewhat jovial example previously.
Please do not misunderstand. I understand the math, and SR. I understand
what a single point in spacetime is envisioned to be. I also understand what
you have been suggesting.
For many years I believed that 4 space was principally valid. However I do
not feel that is the case anymore. This is the point I have been trying to
make. There is a completely logical and rigorous relativity which is based
on observable principals which is, in my mind, much more plausible than 4
space, than Minkowski spacetime.
In that form of relativity, there is a fixed rest frame in space, light is
constrained in velocity, and time is the result of the velocity of light.
Light is not "relativistic" in this form of relativity. And no relativistic
transformations need be applied to light, in fact assuming that time slows
for light, in its frame, because of its velocity, is incorrect.
I may be wrong in my view, but to me, it seems that I was where you are,
regarding light, time, and space, and have now moved further, and understood
more. I can now clearly see a more rigorous basis and cause for relativity
than I could with any 4 space version of relativity. I can also then see a
set of explanations for experimental observations, which do not involve the
requirement for the eventual absorber to be identified before emission.
So John, you see my trouble with this, is not because I do not get it, but
rather because I do, and for me it doesn't work.
I agree that . "The problem with all of us is that once we get an idea into
our heads it can be very hard to shake it off."
Perhaps one of us will have an epiphany, and we will come to see these
issues the same way, but meanwhile it is good to challenge each other and
discuss.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:16 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
Subject: [General] Space time and interaction
Dear Chip,
The problem with all of us is that once we get an idea into our heads it can
be very hard to shake it off. It is not so that a whole single photon event
all takes place at the same point in space-time. this is not what I am
saying. This is a gross over simplification. It may be what you think I am
saying (and others may agree!) - but that is a different thing. You need to
think more clearly and more completely! Let me try again - and then copy a
previous post again below where I tried to explain this before. You will
then get the same thing twice - but explained differently.
What is so is that, what rest-massless means is that one can find a frame in
which the rest-massless object has, as close as you like, a zero mass
energy. This is the (as near as you like) co-moving frame of light.
Mathematically c^2p^2 - m^2c^4 = 0.
In this frame, all points on the path (of the same phase) are, by the
mathematics of SR, as close as you like to the same point in space-time, for
emitter and absorber, as space is contracted, by SR, "as much as you like".
You seem to think this somehow implies that I am am saying that the whole
path is at the same space time point and you do not like this. Me neither! I
am not saying this! Read it again!
The whole path is NOT at the same point. Each different phase is at a
different place, a different time and a different space-time, for every
frame. Read very carefully what I am saying: a point in phase defines a
point in space-time, not the whole path. The phase is the common thing. This
is the thing invariant over all frames. This is the heart of the "harmony of
phases". This is the proper root of quantum mechanics. This is what the
"mathematics of reality" has to parallel. This is very, very hard to get! I
am not (clearly) doing very well at explaining it either.
Remember - the Lorentz contraction is only maths. It is the maths defining
our concept of space-time and what it is. You need to think in context.
Saying something is at the same point in space-time is not the same thing as
saying it is at the same point in space or time. I know this is hard, but it
is what it is. Saying that a particular phase is, in a particular imaginary
frame, at the same space-time point for emitter and observer is just words
expressing maths (poorly).
"What you like" in the above has little or no relation to what actually
happens. Whatever you do or do not like does not affect the outcome a bit.
What the maths tells you is that, for any particular phase point in a
lightspeed phase wave there exists a frame where emitter and absorber - for
that lightspeed wave, are at the same point in space-time for both emitter
and absorber. This does not mean emitter and absorber are at the same point
in space, or that they are at the same time. On the contrary, this is
exactly what they are not.
In each and every frame, emitter, absorber, centre of mass and (near)
lightspeed, different phases are at different points in space-time. This
phase profile, which may be (and usually is!) many thousands of cycles long
is invariant in each frame. If it is a thousand cycles in one frame, it is a
thousand cycles in every frame. Forget the lightspeed frame. No one and no
thing is travelling co-moving with the photon. It is on its own in its own
space. This is part of the point!
Consider the three physical frames - emitter, absorber and centre of mass.
Imagine emitter stationary and absorber moving towards it (this is the
reverse of absorber (observer) stationary as is usual - but this helps make
the point. Emitter emits a red photon, absorber absorbs the same photon as
blue. Emitter sends out a phase profile at one frequency, absorber sees the
same profile coming in, the same number of cycles, but at a different
(higher) frequency. In the centre of mass frame the same photon appears at
an intermediate frequency and appears green. These are all the same photon.
One could argue that "properly" this particular photon is green as this is
its frame and characterises its energy. Take R=1 for this frame. Think
though - for the absorber the energy does NOT come in all at once. Wallop!
On the contrary, it comes in with the phase profile which is relatively (by
the factor R in by first paper) high frequency with respect to its own clock
than it was (factor 1/R) lower for the emitter. This is relativity, look at
the derivation in my photon paper! There is no "event at the same point in
space or time" for either emitter absorber or centre of mass. The phase
profile is the same for each - but longer or shorter with respect to the
particles internal ruler and clock. Each individual particle has only one
ruler and clock. Itself. The energy comes in, resonantly, over a large
number of cycles. The energy is emitted, resonantly over the same number of
cycles. The resonance, the locality of the photon, is ensured by the fact
that, for the photon, any point in phase is at the same space-time (not
space or time) point for both emitter and absorber. This is mere maths.
Space-time is mere maths. Physics is the physical properties of the
particles, and underlying this the space and time defined for each by their
rulers and clocks. And locality defined by the properties of the rulers and
clocks. The rulers and clocks are infinetely stretchy though. They have toi
be to deal with teh linearity of energy, the linearity of field and the
effects that are observed in experiment. To understand this you need to
stretch your mind.
Ok here is what I wrote in a previous email trying to explain this .
Coming back to the point. You are right that things can be understood
provided they are properly explained. I will try ...
You are confusing yourself, I think, in your use of language. The problem is
largely the word "point" and the meaning which you assign to it. This is a
common problem. It is difficult to talk about concepts one does not have a
word for. Your concept of "point" seems to me the common one of a "place
with zero extent". This is the definition of a "mathematical point" you will
get if you look at Wikipedia.
This is a pretty useless concept. It is a place which is a close as you like
to not there at all. A place is better represented by a co-ordinate -
represented by a vector with respect to some useful origin. Let us call this
a "place" to distinguish it. Likewise a space-time point is anything but a
point. It extends over a lightcone, backwards to the beginning of time (and
space) and forwards to its end. Not very point-like then (and point-like is
yet another concept again). It is, indeed, impossible to conceive of a wave
at a single place. That is just silly. Do not even try!
Now consider a single photon event. The maths is such that all points along
an element of the photon path occur at the same co-ordinate in space time
for one particular frame (and not for any other - and this is crucial). That
"event" (and we could better use the word "event" instead of "point" -
though a third word would be better (Bell uses be-able but I do not like
this - transaction is also possible but has extra connotations). Lets just
invent a word ... no I'll use the word con-junction. Ok consider a
con-junction between two distinct spatial points at two distinct times as
measured in two distinct frames, through a third object (an exchange
photon). This travels FROM one TO the other. This is CAUSALITY. The emitter
loses and the absorber gains energy. This is the arrow of time. Forget
thermodynamics. It is that simple.
Consider what the absorber "sees". It sees a photon coming in form its past.
It has been acted upon by an object. That object usually had higher energy
(this is thermodynamics). This object is ALWAYS in its past.
Now think about the exchange photon itself. It has a certain number of
cycles. For the sake of argument let us imagine it is a right circularly
polarised photon, carrying one unit of angular momentum and that it looks
like a flying corkscrew (Cheers Martin) of electromagnetic field precisely a
thousand "turns" long (this is a pretty short photon). In the emitter frame
it is a thousand turns long. In the absorber frame it is a thousand turns
long. In the centre of mass frame it is a thousand turns long. In any
inertial frame it is a thousand turns long. In no frame is it anything other
than a thousand turns long. There is no frame where it is at a single place.
In all frames it is a thousand turn wave (ok - I know an abrupt transition
is unphysical at the ends, but you get what I mean). Now, if one travels at
the front of it, at the speed of light, the phase front remains at a fixed
phase. This is not the same as saying that it is a "point". Your friend,
travelling one wavelength behind, is indeed at a slightly different spatial
and temporal position. How different this is depends on which frame you view
it from. The thing is you, at this speed, "see" the emitter just behind you-
a moment ago, and the absorber just ahead. So does your friend. You have a
thousand friends. They all see this. The time as measured for emission
depends on the frequency in that frame. A thousand counts. Likewise for
absorption (still a thousand but this may be red or blueshifted, so time
will be different in general).
Now let us look from the point of view of the emitter. Does it "see" the
future? No - it sees nothing. It has shucked off some energy. It is gone. In
the next instant that energy is outside its lightcone. It is no longer part
of its observable universe. Lets imagine it is an intelligent emitter (which
can do maths). It may calculate that there is a theoretical possibility of
an advanced wave solution that is tachyonic (travelling faster than light)
arising from the absorber. Fine. In its frame this constitutes a negative
energy solution travelling backwards in time. This is exactly the same
solution as the positive energy solution travelling forwards in time. It has
to be. It is the same photon. In both cases the event is causal in terms of
the flow of time for each observer.
In fact the process is causal whichever frame one looks from. The cause
arises from the object with the initial energy, the effect is that of the
reception of that energy packet. All observers agree where the energy came
from and where it went to. That is all there is to an inter-action.
There is nothing spooky. No action at a distance. It is just not so that
there is just the one location. For each even there are (at least) three:
emitter, absorber and exchange. There are as many locations as there are in
the combinatoric interactions of all of the particles in the universe. That
combinatorics is so big a number that there are not enough atoms in the
universe to provide the ink to even write down the number as an exponential.
This makes John M's 122 orders of magnitude seem merely piffling.
There you go .. same thing, twice in different ways, and in neither is all
the photon at a single space (or time) or space-time, point. You may still
think I am saying that, but I am not.
If not ... I will get you over a beer or two and armed with pencil and
paper!
Cheers, John W.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:56 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Hi John W
I am so looking forward to our discussions at the conference.
It seems that space is the container for all energy, in any form. The
properties of space manage and control all energy. Martin's "Light is heavy"
paper illustrates part of the point, that energy, in any form, in space, has
mass-like effects. And for me, that also implies that light has an
independent existence in space once emitted. Additionally, why state that
matter is made of the same stuff as light, and then ignore the relativistic
consequences of that statement? For if that statement is true, then there
is a clear Euclidian definition for 3 space, and a clear cause for time, as
we perceive it.
So I am coming to believe that Chandra's CTF is more plausible than 4 space,
and that 4 space is only a representation of the interaction of matter
(fermions) with space. And then time, as we know and measure it, is the
result of the interaction of particles, caused by the speed of light.
This would mean that space itself is a perfectly satisfactory "absorber" of
emitted radiation, because space is the "container" and "manager" of all
energy.
The Complex in Complex Tension Field, for me includes some torsion and
"polarization" effects as David mentioned in an earlier email.
For many reasons therefore I do not believe the "single-point-in-spacetime"
"photon exchange" is real at all. For me, this approach causes many more
problems than it solves.
And for many additional reasons, I feel that entanglement is an illusion
caused by misinterpretation of the results of experiment, and
misunderstanding the basic nature of light and extended spatial nature of
particles and their fields.
The cheapest solution to the HBT effect is Maxwellian waves.
I really admire your work, and the progress you have made in in that work,
but I still feel that you have this one wrong. Maybe you will be able to
show me why it must be so, but so far it still seems contrived to me.
With respect and warm regards.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 7:59 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Joakim
Pettersson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Now this is an interesting bunch of questions. Right to the heart of the
matter indeed!
I think it is wise to pause and go back here to the origin of dialectic
itself - the Greek invention to begin to split up the world and systematise
it. The idea that a question could be asked sufficient to split the answer
into two possibilities, one true one false. I think the answer to "is the
photon quantised or is it the emitter and/or absorber" is ... "all three"
because "all three" are part of the single process that we call photon
exchange. Also the word "photon" as opposed to "light" simply CARRIES the
meaning of "quantised". This is a trite way to end an argument, but does
not say anything about the deep understanding of why and how it is
"quantised". Saying "quantised is often giving a word to sum up a lack of
knowledge, to encompass a lack of understanding into a simple label. We
humans have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. There is an awful
lot of room for bullshit here and it is easy to fool oneself into thinking
something has deep meaning, when in fact it is contingent on the
mathematical framework in which one considers it. To illustrate this, just
look at my light paper! The maths quantises continuous light if it is more
than a few wavelengths long - but is the maths right? Who knows?
Coming back to experiment, it may be nice to think about an emitter emitting
a single photon bullet, later absorbed by an absorber, with the photon
having an independent existence in between but this is not only not what is
observed in experiment, but the whole body of evidence contradicts this
simple view. Emitter and absorber ARE experimentally entangled. Antibunching
happens - but it part of a whole process. There is also the Hanbury-Brown
Twiss effect to consider. The "interaction with absorber" theory also plays
a role - bringing in the question of causality itself. As Martin says this
is a huge question.
Remember also that the whole theme of the bi-ennial conference Chandra has
been organising for more than a decade has been to try to answer the very
point of "what is a photon?". The fact that a conclusive answer has not yet
emerged tells the story.
My own view is that the emitter AND absorber need to be quantised, but
quantised in the same way. There is a need to look at Phat photons as a good
experimental probe here and also, as I suggest in my "light" paper, emitters
and absorbers in the fractional quantum Hall regime may have fractional
quantisation E = 1/3 h nu (you heard it here first!). This would show,
conclusively, the role the emitter and absorber play, but still not settle
the question posed properly as I think the fractional quantisation itself is
not yet properly understood..
I think to make proper progress we need to develop a better theory that
fits all the facts - just and no more. A theory that lays bare the nature of
the emitter, the absorber, and the intermediating process - all at once and
from a deeper underlying basis. A theory that allows the whole process to be
understood within a single framework.
Should be fun trying this, even if we cannot sort it all out next week!
Regards, John W.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:55 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Dear David, Richard and Chip,
Thanks for the comments, what we are dealing with here is quite a difficult
question indeed.
First of all Chip, by your remark I can see you do really get the essence of
and reason for my question, that is going to be helpfull.
Richard, certainly most of what you say is true and even relevant but does
not yet hit on the deep implications of the possible answer of my question.
I must emphasize that do not denie any of the experimental facts commonly or
less commonly known about quantum optics, etcetera.
Bunching and anti-bunching are true phenomena that shows transfer of energy
goes in blips, and with certain statistics associated, in complete
accordance of what we may think is a photon. Indeed, this is what IS a
photon, this is what defines ot experimentally.
What I am saying is that one can jump to conclusions and imagine a simple
picture of a photon being some quantum particle to explain the outcome of
the experiments (and for that purpose it will, always, work perfectly).
Alternatively one can take a more involved point of view by asigning an
essential role to the emitter and absorber to explain the experiment. Being
lazy, that doesn't seem to be a comfortable option, but it does open the
door to solving deeper questions:
What is the nature of the photon?
The alternative view relieves the photon from having on board everything to
define it. That is the crucial insight.
After a century in which no person has been able to answer the question,
this seems to be a viable option. On top of that, it solves non-locality
issues.
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 3 aug. 2015 om 06:13 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Hi Chip,
There's a long history and fight among the founders of quantum mechanics
since 1926 about whether quantum processes can be treated as continuous
(Schrodinger and others) or discrete quantum jumps (Heisenberg and others).
Their two quantum calculation methods (wave mechanics and matrix mechanics)
were shown to be mathematically equivalent. And Einstein's ideas in 1905
about the light quantum (later named photon) as a carrier of light energy
weren't really generally accepted until 1923 with the Compton effect where
photons seem to act like billiard balls in terms of their energy and
momentum interactions with electrons. Semi-Classical physics argues that
emission and absorption processes are quantized but energy transmission
through radiation remains classical. Most physicists don't accept
semi-classical ideas any more and accept that the photon carries quantized
energy given by E=hf even when photons are not being emitted or absorbed.
QED supposedly solved the problem by renormalizing infinities to finite
numbers. Dirac was never satisfied with this approach (ugly math), but QED
does give very precise answers. So it's a long and continuing story. I think
that Compton wavelength-sized electron models are a key to deeper
understanding of all this, because this length is often treated as a cutoff
length in calculating the force between two electrons which might otherwise
be treated as point charges associated with infinite energies.
Richard
On Aug 2, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Richard
The question of whether the "photon" is inherently quantized, or just
appears quantized to us, through our observation of the reaction of the
quantized emitters and absorbers, seems to be an important aspect for
creating a full understanding of the nature of "photons", and their reaction
with particles.
The process of emission is a quantized process, as is the process of
absorption. But since a photon can be any number of wavelengths, depending
on the quantized configuration of the emission process, it seems that the
photon itself cannot be strongly quantized, and may have no inherent
quantization at all, meaning no forces in itself which cause it to be
quantized. We know that fermions have forces which cause their resonant
nature and quantization.
If I understand Martin's challenge, it is to show that the photon must be
inherently quantized, and not just quantized because of the emitter and
absorber. ??
Chip
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 7:54 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Martin,
That's fine. But why focus on the photon as not a particle but a process?
The emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber are processes also and not
particles. So what is the source of existence and stability of all these?
Everything is process. So where do we go from here? Quantum effects are also
process. Does that not make them less physical?
Richard
On Aug 2, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
wrote:
Richard, not true. How does it work?
It only proves the end result, the quantized transfer, but not whether the
field is intrinsically quantized.
There is an aweful lot of shit and confusion and parottery ( if that is a
concept) about this. So, please dont quote it unless you can really explain
why it makes the difference.
My position is actually that this is impossible at the deepest level!
But the consequence of that is that it is also impossible to make a
description of a photon as being a particle! Because it is only a process,
and that does not require existence and stability by itself, it aquires it
within the context of the exchange of energy and angular momentum by
emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber. This is why the process can
have any number of wavelenghts, any polarization and be entangled.
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 3 aug. 2015 om 02:14 heeft Richard Gauthier <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com> het volgende
geschreven:
Hello Martin,
Thanks for your challenge to the group.
I'm quoting from the Wikipedia article "Photon" at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
: "Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of
quantum mechanics, many further experiments
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-2> [2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-3> [3] starting with
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering> Compton scattering of
single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's
hypothesis that light itself is
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28physics%29> quantized. "
The abstract of reference [2] titled
Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence,
H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel
Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 - Published 12 September 1977
says: "The phenomenon of antibunching of photoelectric counts has been
observed in resonance fluorescence experiments in which sodium atoms are
continuously excited by a dye-laser beam. It is pointed out that, unlike
photoelectric bunching, which can be given a semiclassical interpretation,
antibunching is understandable only in terms of a quantized electromagnetic
field. The measurement also provides rather direct evidence for an atom
undergoing a quantum jump."
You seem to be claiming that there is no definite experimental proof that
light itself is quantized. Does the above experiment contradict your claim?
You may say that the above experiment or any single experiment or group of
experiments cannot be completely conclusive. Well, is any physics experiment
completely conclusive about a theory? Are you asking the impossible when you
ask for conclusive experimental proof?
all the best,
Richard
On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
wrote:
Dear Andrew,
I have looked at the questionnaire and realized that the one, most important
question is missing!
Question 2 is closest to it, but not quite as straight to the point.
The question is to my opinion the most fundamental of any to be asked in the
context of the nature of the photon. It is: Does quantization of the
transfer of electromagnetic energy and angular momentum (the process that is
mediated by what we call "photon") resides in the electromagnetic field
itself or in the emitter and absorber? Or something else, perhaps.
Anyone may take a position of what he or she likes best of course, and I
have my preference of what I would think it to be.
But if one takes a position as being the truth, it should be accompanied by
reference to experimental proof.
I bet that no one can come up with any reference that is conclusive about
this! It is the pink elephant in the room.if it is there we should make it
explicit!!!!
Best regards, 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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 1 augustus 2015 6:03
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Mary Fletcher
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Dear John M,
Looking forward to talking w you at the conference.
I recognized that most of us have too much to say on most of the items.
Could you perhaps provide chapter or page of sections of your book that
pertain to the questions? That would give an interested party a handy guide
to the more detailed info and to your book.
Andrew
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:02 PM, < <mailto:john at macken.com> john at macken.com>
wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I am currently in Iceland and starting tomorrow I will be in Greenland for 7
days. Most of that time I will definitely be out of email contact and the
rest of the time it is questionable if I will have any internet. I will be
returning to the US just before the conference. I will arrive in San Diego
about noon on Monday, Aug. 10. Therefore I will miss the Sunday night
get-together.
I have found it very hard to write the concise answers required for the
questionnaire. The reason is that I have much more detailed answers for each
of the questions than most other people in the group. For example, I have
just finished what I believe is the final substantive draft of my book
titled "The Universe is Only Spacetime". It is now over 400 pages. The
portion of the book addressed by the questions extends from chapter 4 to
chapter 11. This is a total of 134 pages. Furthermore, I get into
substantial quantitative detail and proofs which make short answers
impossible.
For example, with electrons I have explained and quantified two components
of the electron model. This model does not derive either the electron's
Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, if these two
numbers are provided, I can derive the electron's energy, inertia,
gravitational curvature of spacetime, gravitational force with another
fundamental particle, and electrostatic force with another fundamental
particle. This derivation comes from the properties of spacetime and the
particle model. If I just proceed from first principles, I generate the
electrostatic force if both particles had Planck charge rather than
elementary charge e. In an earlier email, John W. considered this to be a
defect. He said that I had missed the correct value by more than a factor of
100 (missed by 1/α). This is ironic because I was quite happy with this
answer. I was calculation the force assuming a coupling constant of 1, not
the electron's force with a mysterious coupling constant of alpha (α).
I believe that this is the first time that a model of a fundamental particle
has been able to generate the gravitational force and the electrostatic
force even assuming a coupling constant of 1. If you know of any other model
which has passed this test, I would be interested in hearing about it.
I have not mentioned it before, but my model also generates the strong
force. The model also produces asymptotic freedom when quarks are bound
together into hadrons and explains why the strong force increases as the
separation distance is increased beyond the natural distance which produces
asymptotic freedom. (all in the book.)
On another point, I believe that any model of particles that does not
include waves which modulate the rate of time will never be able to generate
either curved spacetime or the gravitational force. It is my understanding
that Chandra's CTF model only involves the 3 spatial dimensions without
involving time. If he introduces time into his model, then my model and his
model would be very close.
Finally, I object to characterizing an electron as being a confined photon.
I believe that a photon and an electron are both made of the same
fundamental building block. Therefore photons can be converted to
electron/positron pairs and vice versa. They are closely related, but saying
that an electron is an oscillating confined photon implies that a photon is
the fundamental building block of the universe or at least particles. It
also implies that we will never be able to understand an electric field, a
magnetic field or a charge in terms of a distortion of a more fundamental
component.
I explain all of these in terms of a distortion of energetic spacetime. I
claim that an electric field, a magnetic field and even a gravitational
field have both an oscillating component and a non-oscillating component.
I give equations for these in the book. I show that the oscillating
component gives the correct energy density to the electric and magnetic
field. I also propose that a gravitational field has an energy density. I
combine this with the energy of the spacetime field and show how the
interaction generates a black hole when the energy density of the
gravitational field at a particular frequency matches the energy density of
spacetime at that frequency.
While I have finished this most recent revision of the book, it has not been
loaded onto the website yet. There is a problem with the website that is
preventing new material from being loaded onto the website. This problem is
being worked on by one of my sons and should be fixed in a few days.
John M.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew Meulenberg" < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:57am
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "Mary Fletcher" < <mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com>
marycfletcher at gmail.com>
Subject: [General] Questionnaire
Dear Folks,
We have 4 contributors so far. It is very illuminating. I hope that at some
point we can get convergence on at least some of the questions. John W. has
added a question that everyone can add to the end of the list:
QUESTION 14: By what mechanism is the electron confined?
I do not have time to answer the good comments in the individual emails
right now (wife and premature twins, Grant and Remington, are in the
hospital and all doing well). However, I hope to have time at the Conference
to do so in person for those present.
I will not be arriving until 8:16PM on Sunday evening, so I cannot join the
group (where ever) until about 9PM. Please do not wait until then to get
started. I will be leaving Friday evening.
My time and schedule are somewhat constrained by that of Bob Hudgins and
Mary Fletcher, who will arrive earlier in the day. We are planning on
renting a car and staying at a motel in South Bay where the rates are more
reasonable. if anyone else is doing something similar, please let me know.
Best to all,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/mules333%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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150804/de1a789b/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list