[General] Space time and interaction
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Thu Aug 6 07:22:33 PDT 2015
Martin:
Chip isn’t refuting relativity here. He’s understanding it.
Chip:
Cirencester isn’t too far from Poole. It’s more west of London though,
did you mean Cirencester? As for the basic motion of space, what can I say?
Space waves. Yes, you could say there’s some motion faster than c, in that
the wave propagates thataway → whilst waving up and down thisaway ↑↓,
but all we’re talking about is factor of √2, like you said. It’s
nothing to get excited about. And note that electrons can absorb any energy
you like in Compton scattering. It’s only in atoms where they’re in
orbitals that they behave like they’re changing gear.
Yes, we “measure time” using frequency, which boils down to the motion of
waves. We define the second as the time it takes for 9192631770 microwaves
to pass us by. Yes, I agree that we’re made of the same stuff as light.
And yes, I agree that this shows us what causes relativity. See The Other
Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. I’ve attached it. We always
measure the speed of light waves to be the same because we’re made of
those waves. Ah, you’re already referring to it. I am preaching to the
converted! I also agree that everything is not relative, because the CMB
rest frame is the reference of the universe. Whilst your motion relative to
the universe is still relative, it’s absolute too, because the universe is
as absolute as it gets. That’s where the buck stops. Noted re Bell, I
presume you’ve read Travis Norsen’s paper
<http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401> http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401. Ah yes,
the “cheapest” is mentioned there. And ah, I’ve just seen your next
email, where you attach Robert Close’s paper!
And yes, we are talking about space, not spacetime. Einstein never confused
the two, and nor should anybody else. We move through space, there is no
motion through spacetime, the map is not the territory. It’s 3D space
wherein the Lorentz factor comes straight out of Pythagoras’ theorem
because of the wave nature of matter. And in a gravitational field, this
space is inhomogeneous. The properties of space vary, and so does the speed
of energy. Yes, spacetime is a mathematical abstraction. It’s a cargo-cult
myth that the Earth is surrounded by spacetime. It isn’t, it’s surrounded
by space. Light moves through this space, and we model how it moves using
the concept of curved spacetime. But space is not curved in a gravitational
field. It’s curved in an electromagnetic field. As for time, that doesn’t
move at all. Waves move. And when we appreciate that, we hopefully
appreciate that the beliefs we’re discarding are beliefs we learned from
people who appealed to Einstein’s authority whilst flatly contradicting
him.
Regards
John D
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On
Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 06 August 2015 14:30
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Dear Chip,
I have no clue where you have got this from and why it seems so necessary
to refute relativity the way you do.
I am using relativity in the standard manner and find no problems at all!
What are the problems that I do not see?
There are however, I do strongly believe, problems with the notion of
matter.
But indeed these may be fixed by saying that matter itself is built from
what light is built from, and you obviously agree with that.
Then there are just a few “minor” problems:
* what holds things together (nature of Poincare stresses).
* make a topological theory of light and quantum mechanics ( I have
a first version now) that can replace the roly-poly photon models.
* What is space-time (John D, Chandra and many have a point here,
but I may look at it slightly differently still)
In fact, the three point above are the same elephant, so to speak
See you later!
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 Chip Akins
Sent: donderdag 6 augustus 2015 14:59
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Dear John D
Wish you were joining us in San Diego. Perhaps you and I can find a chance
to sit and talk sometime soon. I have a friend and business associate who
owns Dartly Farms about an hour north of London, near Cirenchester.
Sometimes we have board meetings for our LED lighting business at his farm.
Maybe next trip I can make arrangements to meet with you.
As I think about space and time, I come to many of the same conclusions
that you express.
However I am still looking at the basic motion of space, the displacement
which the waves of energy cause. And I find that displacement contains
some motion which is faster than c, in some circumstances it is simply the
square root of 2 c. This displacement velocity, seems to be required, for
the properties of space to exhibit the properties we can detect, in the
motion, and momentum, we measure in light and particles, and to provide for
light to travel at a forward velocity of c.
The oscillations of fermionic particles are caused by the “forward” speed
of these waves and their confinement, creating a frequency. Therefore these
fermionic particles are quantized and resonant. It is natural therefore
that they can only emit or absorb energy which contains certain
frequencies.
We measure time by using various methods. Using frequency to measure time
is the most prominent method. Whether that frequency is the motion of a
mechanical pendulum, the resonance of a crystal, or the oscillation of
Cesium 133 atoms. But in all of cases, frequency is just the interval
imposed by speed and distance.
But the simple fact that material rulers and clocks behave in exactly the
same way, as rulers and clocks based on the speed of light, illustrates
again, that we are made of the same stuff that light is made of.
Now, if we are made of the same stuff that light is made of, that brings us
to some further understanding. This shows us what causes relativity. This
is the simplest explanation, and a very robust and well supported premise,
based on the clear evidence. It simply means that we will see relativistic
effects due to the motion of material objects in space. Here it is good to
refer to the “sonar” relativity example from Robert Close. But this
relativistic mechanism, clearly indicated by many simple observations,
means that there is a reference rest frame in space, and everything is NOT
relative. In other words, it means that the reference rest frame of space
is just that, the frame from which we can more easily understand and
calculate the behavior of light and particles. It is the frame from which
we can understand all of the details with the easiest math and clarity.
This is the model of space that John Stuart Bell said was the cheapest
solution to the problems.
Now, this space we have just described, is NOT spacetime. It is 3D
Euclidian space. And time is simply the result of the speed of light in
that 3D space. In this space, material objects, moving relativistically,
will show clear Pythagorean transformation, due to the speed of the stuff
of which the material objects are comprised. Time for relativistic
material objects will also be transformed, specifically due to the speed of
light. But the relationship between the motion of energy and time remains
unchanged, and the relationship between light and space remains unchanged,
with energy always traveling at the velocity dictated by the properties of
3D space.
So, due to the evidence, I now feel that spacetime is a mathematically
contrived conjecture, which does not reflect the nature of space. And that
math can only be applied carefully and correctly to the motion of material
bodies in space. Simply because this motion of material bodies in space is
the only place where the transformations occur in nature. Once again, I
believe that some interesting math which reflects part of the behavior of
the motion of material objects in space, but which does not reflect the
basic nature of space, has been extended and applied in ways that are
incorrect. So I feel there is no media “spacetime”, but that space itself
is simple 3D Euclidian space, and time, in the reference frame of space,
can and must only move in one direction.
Why state that we are made of the same stuff as light, and then completely
ignore the simple relativistic implications?
I know it is hard to discard beliefs we have held for so long, and bought
into so completely. This was a very hard transition for me, but it seems
we must be willing to accept the evidence, and change our views when
required, in order to make any real progress.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 2:44 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Chip/Martin:
When you have your discussion, please accept this little bit of input from
me in England: a clock clocks up motion, and motion is motion whichever way
it goes.
Regards
John
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On
Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 06 August 2015 00:21
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Hi Martin
Yes. I am so looking forward to having the chance to sit and talk with you.
Discussing and hammering out the details is sometimes a test of our
patience. Thank you also for being both knowledgeable and thoughtful and
trying to help in every way you can.
We have each looked at different aspects, with different specific
backgrounds, so it is good that we can put our heads together and sort it
through. I guess we never know where that spark of an epiphany may come
from.
See you soon
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 6:01 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Chip, thank you for the reply. We come, in some respects, from different
ends and things that are obvious to you may not be obvious to me. We have a
brilliant opportunity to fix a few in the coming week. One thing I do have
to say is that you seem to be true to yourself and to others and take
interest in what others say. It doesn't get much better than that, so i am
hopeful that things can be learned by both of us.
See you soon!
Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 5 aug. 2015 om 23:42 heeft Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Hi Martin
I have reviewed these items many times. But I will do that once more,
specifically because you took the time to address them in this context.
Thank you.
I am familiar with the concept of time reversal. But trying to communicate
something which does not agree in full, with the current thinking about
time. I thought I knew this stuff s few years ago as well. But now I am
coming to think that there are problems with the foundation. And that my
previous concepts about time and space, the ones I was taught, are not
precisely correct.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Chip,
The time reversal transformation(T) is a basic concept in physics (you
should have known already) stating a symmetry known from the football field.
If you score a goal, and I film it such that you are kicking from the left
into the goal (on the right), and then look at it backwards , you will see
the goal to the right and you to the left, nothing changes in the position
vectors from me to you or anything at all.
The velocity vector of the ball changes sign, the ball moves from left to
right in the original but played backwards it goes from right to left, out
of the goal onto your foot!
DRAW THE ARROWS (position and velocity) and see they are of a different
nature.
And then I can film in the mirror, and you do a curved ball spinning to the
left, etceterea……and then the so-called PARITY transformation (P) becomes
clear.
At primary school I was taught that one cannot add 3 cows to 4 horses to
make 7 corses or howses or whatever. But one can fix this in a different
way, I learned later.
The (x,y) plane can be summarized by a single complex number z=x+iy. It are
still two things, but condensed to one. This is how our (3+1)D space is
built up: by 4 copies that can be disentangled by IMAGINING (not doing) the
T and P transformation. Film cameras and mirrors help to illustrate this in
all its glory, but as you see, just writing about it should get you the
same picture! Imagination is always just what is required to get an idea.
So I am just trying to teach you something, a gem of an insight that is
rare to too many people. Note that I do, contrary to many, only teach when
I know what I am talking about. Furthermore this is not about my work, but
about general physics. It is your loss if you do not want to take it in,
but I will regret it nonetheless.
Think about it!
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 Chip Akins
Sent: woensdag 5 augustus 2015 16:12
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Hi Martin
I might then reply, no my friend, it is you who are wrong.
But that brings neither of us closer to being right.
For I think much of the problem, and lack of real progress in physics, is
due to us building on some amazing foundations, including QM, but which
still contain erroneous assumptions.
When you have time, please let me know why and how you think I am wrong.
I really appreciate this.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 8:56 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Chip,
I am not referring to interpretations of any theory, so forget about that.
You simply did not got the idea…so, you are wrong.
Bye, 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 Chip Akins
Sent: woensdag 5 augustus 2015 15:50
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Hi Martin
I think you will find that an open helix, with appropriate confinement
forces (boundary conditions) also forms a stable wave function as it
travels through space. And when viewing this in the moving frame of the
particle, it looks like it closes on itself, but in space, viewed from an
external frame, it does not. So we actually lose some information about the
energy reaction with space, when viewing moving particles from their own
inertial frame. If this is true then in the eternal reference frame, the
wave is not biting its tail.
But much of this goes back to which version of relativity do we use when
constructing the wave functions. If our relativistic foundation is wrong,
it leads us to weirdness, and misinterpretation.
The foundation of QM, and misinterpretation of data, and the foundation of
relativity, have lead us to where we are today. If we can identify the
errors in the foundations, and correct them, it seems we can get past the
stagnation, and much of the perceived weirdness in our observations.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 7:58 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Hi Richard,
You may object whatever you like.
Physics is another thing, there we have to deal with things more
precisely. Quantum mechanics, wave mechanics in general, can be described
in very essence by some differential equation (a wave equation) and (very
important) boundary conditions. Boundaries in the very simple meaning of
“a wall”.
In any case, and I mean ANY case, what you get is stationary solutions of,
for example, standing waves in a guitar string, quantum particles in a box,
electron in the atom light in a laser cavity. So a STABLE SOLUTION of your
putative charged photon inside a model particle must also have such a
stationary state when viewed in its proper frame and it bites its own tail.
Hopefully, if your model particle is a like an electron, it has no, or few
excited states (perhaps just muon and tauon) and the ground state will be a
SINGLE MODE DIFFRACTED STATIONARY WAVE, not because I like it or say it,
but because it is. Hence it has a size related to the wavelength (depending
on dimensionality of the problem, but for example 1D we all know it is ½
wavelength) and it is diffracted out into ALL available dimensions, and all
dimensions will take part in defining what is now the fundamental mode of
the system.
So, in 3D we have more walls that define more “quantum numbers”: in (x,
y, z) or better (r, theta, phi). Together they make the resonant cavity,
now depending on binding interaction and topology. It may be toroidal in
some sense, but is likely spherical on the whole. You may scribe in paths
of flow….and closed they are.
In short: non-closing paths are non-stable and interfere destructively.
I hope this helps.
Best and I will make sure there is a cold beer ready for you!
Cheers, 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: woensdag 5 augustus 2015 14:25
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Hi Martin,
I object to a particle's circulating energy being characterized as
“biting its own tail”. In a moving double-looping electron model the axis
of the electron’s circulating energy can become helical and does not
remain circular like a donut. The electron's energy then moves snakelike
through space with its “head” always in front of its “tail”, without
any biting of the tail. The electron’s energy only appears to be biting
its tail in a resting electron, but even here the “head” would have to
pass beside and not through its “tail" after one circumference. In a
double-looping tail-biting resting electron model, if the moving energy
"bites its tail", at the end of the first cycle the energy’s wave motion
would cancel itself out because the energy of the head would meet its
extended energy 180 degrees out of phase (assuming the electron's energy is
spread out). One way for a resting electron’s circulating energy to not
cancel out the first time around in a double-looping electron model is if
the energy even in the resting electron moves helically in a closed double-
looping helix. At the end of the first round the energy is on one side of
its closed mathematical circular axis and at the end of the second round
its energy is on the other side of its mathematical circular axis, where
the extended energy is again in phase with itself. That is, the electron’s
energy even in a resting electron is moving helically with a non-zero
helical radius along a mathematical toroidal surface around a mathematical
double-looped helical axis of double-loop length h/mc, the Compton
wavelength. (This is not the toroidal topology of the 1997 article.) The
circulation frequency of a stationary electron’s energy in a double-looped
electron model is therefore the zitterbewegung frequency Fzitt=2mc^2/h. And
in a moving electron the electron’s energy is vibrating at an increased
frequency (because the electron’s energy is increased) with a
correspondingly decreased wavelength, while moving in a helix-on-a-helix
motion (instead of a helix on a circle for a resting electron.)
Richard
On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Martin
As always, it is informative to get your take on these issues. Thank You!
So are you saying the when a packet of light is emitted and then absorbed,
that packet of light is a photon, but when a packet of light is just
emitted into space, it is not what we call a photon, but just light?
Chip
From: General [ <mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
All,
Perhaps just for the record, I dtrongly agree with john w on the
domensionality of space, or space time. In fact it is only possible to
describe our normal kinetics and dynamics of curve balls using 4x(3+1)
dimensions, which we perceive to be projected on 3 space and 1 time
dimension. Ever heard of the difference between axial and polar vectors?
That is parity, your first factor of 2! Another factor of 2 comes from the
time reversal: velocoty vector or position vector of a ball change
differently when the shot on goal is played backwards...
Regarding emitter and absorber, Chip, the circulating EM energy in a
particle is biting its own tail and seems to be its own emitter and
absorber with sideways boundary conditions (radial), it is contained in
some way and that is why it is what we perceive to be as a particle.
For light it is exactly the same: when the emitter and absorber are
included, EM radiation is contained and also perceived as a particle, we
call it a photon. Without emitter and absorber there is just continuous
flow of unquantized energy....
Which again proves the validity of the argument regarding the photon merely
indicating a proces!
Thank you Chip for giving me the opportunity! ;-)
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 5 aug. 2015 om 03:44 heeft Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
chipakins at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Hi John W
It may be me who is missing something, but either way our discussions will
wind up sharpening our thoughts and may help.
I too have the feeling that there are 4 “aspects” to space, so in one
sense you could view them as 4 different 3D sets, but I find it more
intuitive to cast everything back to the 3D space we experience. And try to
keep the calculations, as much as possible, related to our perceived 3D
space.
The problem I have with the “photon-exchange” concept is based on several
issues. I have voiced a few of those concerns already. But there are other
reasons as well.
Opinion follows:
One is simply the fact that we are saying that photons, and fermionic
particles are made of the same stuff. Particles have an existence of their
own. They exist in space, and they can travel through space, in fact the
stuff in fermionic particles is traveling through space at principally the
same speed as a photon moves, even though the particle itself is not
generally moving near as fast. They are made of the same stuff, and that
stuff can exist independently in space. That stuff does not require an
emitter and an absorber in order to exist. That stuff in particles is
clearly not occupying the “same point in spacetime” for the duration of
its existence. So I see no need for the photon to have to identify the
absorber at emission. Space is a completely satisfactory destination for a
photon at emission, just as space is a completely valid container and
manager of the energy in fermionic particles. Whether the photon travels
for microseconds or billions of years, it exists, independently, in space
until it is absorbed, just as the particles can exist independently.
Of course I may be wrong about this, and probably many other items, but so
far this is how it seems to me.
Warmest Regards
Chip
From: General [ <mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 8:07 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
Dear Chip,
I too must apologise for presuming you had missed my earlier point.
I do hope I am missing something! Please explain to me again - what do you
think I am missing?
I should say in advance - my own view of 3D space it that it is not merely
3D but four times 3D, superimposed.
Regards, John.
_____
From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.
natureoflightandparticles.org> general-
bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [ <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:32 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction
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>
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 [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.
natureoflightandparticles.org> general-
bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [ <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> 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>
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 [ <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.
natureoflightandparticles.org> general-
bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 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 < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.
com> 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 < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
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.org] 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.natureoflightandparticles.org>
mailto:general-
bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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-
natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.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-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> 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
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=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-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> 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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> 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
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=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-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=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-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
1> 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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsu
bconfirm=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/20150806/e4932ab6/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OtherRelativity.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 580975 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150806/e4932ab6/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the General
mailing list