[General] Space time and interaction

[John Williamson]

Dear all,
The underlying nature of space and time lies central to our common project over these next few days. There is a problem though – all of us may think we know just what space and time are – but this is not the case. It is also easy and facile to polarize the debate in terms of relativists versus non-relativists. This is far too simple a representation of the complexity and beauty of the underlying nature of space and time. I am not going to come down on the side of one of the other – this is not to say I’m going to sit on the fence. I want to own that fence and understand what it is grounded in.
There are many levels of complexity in the understanding of the nature of space and time – and a huge difference between the way it is perceived in “common knowledge” in standard courses on relativity at university, and in deeper consideration such as in Lorentz relativity – where physical objects all deform in the same way due to motion through an absolute space.  In my view, all of these have some basis and merit (even the “common knowledge” one of simple Euclidean space), though none are the whole story. Deep thought is not enough – we need clear thought.
Let me try to take take you down the rabbit hole of some of the way I currently think about this. I’m afraid that I do not have the time (or the space!) to explain this fully in plain english – and I am going to use words and concepts from my posted papers. This is just a random snapshot of some current thinking. I’m perfectly happy starting from either standpoint – provided that it is consistent with all of experiment.
The first thing to note is that, experimentally, common reality IS 3D. You walk around a 3D table and build a 3D house. The second is that the measurement of these IS relative to your motion – according to the transformations of relativity – whether “Lorentz” or “Einstein”. In the transformations, as usually understood, one mans space is another mans time. Clocks do slow down in orbit. Relativistic cosmic ray muons live thousands of times longer than they would at rest.
To go beyond these well-known things one must realize (at least) two things. Firstly, it is not space and time one needs to understand but rather inverse space and inverse time. These are not the same thing. Inverse time- frequency is the basis of that thing we call energy. Inverse space the basis that thing we call momentum. Inverse time is in the same direction as time. Inverse space is in the opposite direction to space.  Remember that – in conventional physics – these are quantities related through an uncertainty principle. It is the energy of a particle (its mass) that is fixed – not its time. Likewise for momentum and position. Time is never when you think it is and space never where you think it is if you think like a quantum mechanic.
Our equations Maxwell –Shroedinger _Dirac all work with differentials. These are inverse time and inverse space operators. In them, time and space is presumed continuous and contiguous. In them space and time are not viewed as a “fixed grid”. Both space AND time are brought in as dynamics. Look at them! Does this mean reality is calculus powered? No, of course not, calculus is just the best tool us stupid apes have come up with to communicate this stuff with. What is really going on is more like rotation than like integrals and differentials. More like projections than either. Projections that encode “what does this look like to me?” in an inter-action. Integrals and differentials are just a way of keeping track of how these rotational transformations work in moving vot (root energy density – see papers) from one space-time form to another (Field to current for example). The time and space we perceive comes in as a dynamical process. When you feel that 3D table you are not feeling space. You are feeling electric field. The electric field has only three components (not four!). It is a 3D table, not a 4D table. You are not feeling space, but rather space divided by time. D-space-by- d time. You are feeling a space/time (and time/space) area. You need to project it onto your own measures of space and time to make sense of it – but the underlying reality is more complicated than most think.
The second thing you need to understand is de Broglies “harmony of phases”. I have not put this into the papers in any deep way (though it is mentioned – and used) – as I did not have the space or the time – but maybe I should.
The point here is that the transformations of relative motion is characterized by a single real number R – but both in things that scale with R and things which scale with 1/R. Things and their inverse. One needs to understand the consequences of this fully. It is hard. Talk to me about it if you like. Everything reflecs and is symmetrical about the speed of that thing that everything is made of- the speed of light then.
The thing is that physical clocks made of electro-pivot-magnetic material BOTH speed up AND slow down. All the time. Every time. If you take (as I do) space to be what rulers measure – your ruler may appear to shrink. Likewise if you take (as I do) that time is what clocks measure your clocks speed up and slow down all at once, depending whether you take “time” as the rate of change of phase (nconventional) or as the completion of a circuit – a tick (conventional). These are not the same thing (except if the particle is stationary with respect to you – then R is 1 and 1/1=1).
If underlying space exists, and swirls through you – all your clocks and rulers would also swirl and, if our shape were initially spherical, would not show a deviation from apparent sphericity. If this were coupled to energy and momentum, however, that would be a different matter. You would get buffeted – pushed around – feel the force.
Sit on a chair. Feel the force.
This all comes back to what I said at the beginning. One needs to understand, not only space and time, but also inverse space and inverse time. One needs to understand space, time, momentum and energy. One must leave no room for uncertainty about this!
Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 2:34 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

Hi John D

Thank you.  Good suggestion.

Black holes are a bit difficult to study.  Mathematical creations which suggest the nature of “black holes” are principally guesses. But a black hole with spin would still have motion (transverse) at the horizon. And I suspect that a black hole still has motion in the waves of energy within, but that the motion is principally confined to “spin” or rotation of the energy in the black hole.

Now suppose that the experiment “Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields” attached, suggests that something does move faster than light.  Which is suggested also by John Stuart Bell: He said: “I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light.”,” Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”

Now suppose that the energy in the Coulomb fields of fermions are the specific cause for gravity.  Suppose that this is the energy which causes the increased density of space to be apparent.  This would help to explain why we can feel gravity from a “black hole” even though we cannot see light escaping from it.

But remember that we need to consider that the energy in space, which causes gravity, may have an effect on both the density term p, and the transverse modulus term[cid:image001.png at 01D0D27E.2DD3EC80].   As in[cid:image003.png at 01D0D27E.2DD3EC80].  In other words, energy, in this form, in space, increases the apparent “density” of space, and, because it is also adding strain to space, it affects the modulus of space.  If this is correct then the relationship between [cid:image005.png at 01D0D27E.2DD3EC80]  and p, which accompanies the change in this energy, would yield the correct slowing of light to produce the gravitational constant.

Interestingly, if the velocity of the Coulomb field is 137 times the speed of light, a longitudinal instead of transverse disturbance of space, then probably the only effect we could easily measure of this field is the effect of charge. These fast, longitudinal disturbances of space would be mostly “incompatible” with the waves in fermions, therefore they would only have a small fractional effect on the transverse waves in fermions, and we may “feel” that effect as charge.

So I have given some consideration to the black hole, but there is still much to do.

Thoughts?

Chip


From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 4:49 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

Chip:

Have a think about black holes. The gravitational time dilation is infinite, and the “coordinate” speed of light is zero. So there’s no motion or momentum. There is however still a gravitational field.

Regards
John

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 08 August 2015 13:59
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 John D

When we look at the reaction of energy with space, and then understand that all forms of energy in space have momentum, and all forms of energy in space therefore display mass-like properties, we can see how a “density” term for space can be derived from the energy content of space. These mass-like properties of energy, cause space to have more “inertia”, and more resulting momentum, meaning more force to act against, which is the meaning of the “density” term for space in wave propagation. So when more energy is present, space is moving more, that motion possess momentum, space appears denser as a result.  The tensors of space resist there being regions where there is “more space” or “less space”, and that is why space appears so “stiff” in the propagation of EM radiation. When energy displaces space, tensors in space work to return space to its “normalized” condition.

Because of the items above, it is hard for me to see the concept of more space in a region making space appear more “dense”. Still need to think about how that could happen.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 10:11 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

Chip:

I empathize. I’d even take things a bit further and say that at some fundamental level it’s the same thing as energy.  A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous, like there’s a pressure-gradient in space. People talk about the spatial energy-density, but you could just as well talk about inserting space into space. Then we start talking about the density of space itself. Not that it has a density in the conventional sense, but I hope you know what I mean anyway. Strange stuff is space. Space waves, and everything is made of it.

Regards
JohnD

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 07 August 2015 14:30
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 John D


There is one view which seems to be very important for understanding space.

Below you remarked, “… that the Earth is surrounded by spacetime. It isn’t, it’s surrounded by space.”

What is important, it seems, is to fully realize, that we are not just surrounded by space, our existence is embedded in space. Every bit of energy in the universe, including the energy in the fermionic particles of mass of which we and the earth are made, is completely contained and managed by the properties of space. Space is the container for all, it is the fabric which allows all energy to exist in the manner we experience. We are in, and of, space.

I know this is your understanding as well, but the implications are more than normally “meet the eye”.

And regarding some considerations about gravity…

We have already stated that all energy in space displays mass-like properties.  The mass-energy equivalence holds, due to the properties of space.  And as Richard has said, in space momentum creates mass, just as moving mass creates momentum. So if energy in space has mass-like effects, the energy in space increases the “density” term of space p. as in the transverse wave velocity formula:
[cid:image006.png at 01D0D27E.2DD3EC80]
The transverse modulus[cid:image001.png at 01D0D27E.2DD3EC80], of space also is affected by this displacement, but to a lesser extent it seems.  The speed of light is then slowed in regions of space with a higher inherent energy density. The fields of particles extend off into space, and contain energy, so that space in the vicinity of massive objects naturally has a higher energy density than the more “empty” regions.

And then we would have gravity as a result.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 9:23 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Space time and interaction

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. 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<mailto: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] 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 <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto: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] 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 [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com<mailto: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] 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.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com<mailto: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.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto: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] 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 <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto: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 <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto: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 :  "Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-2>[3]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-3> starting with Compton scattering<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering> of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28physics%29>. "

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 <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto: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] 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, <john at macken.com<mailto: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" <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:57am
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: "Mary Fletcher" <marycfletcher at gmail.com<mailto: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 atmules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150809/48ff4dff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 294 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150809/48ff4dff/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 528 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150809/48ff4dff/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 287 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150809/48ff4dff/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 643 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150809/48ff4dff/attachment-0003.png>