[General] Impedance of Spacetime

Tue Aug 18 00:09:50 PDT 2015

Do you accept that spacetime has impedance of about c3/G?

No. But I accept that space is harder than diamond and stronger than steel,
and that it has a vacuum impedance of:

A gravitational field is merely a place in space where this varies in a
static fashion. A gravitational wave is where it varies dynamically. 

Regards

John D

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: 18 August 2015 01:22
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

John W and All,

Late yesterday John W. posted a comment about light interacting with charge.
In this comment he made the following statement: “Even near particles,
notwithstanding the stupid numbers bandied about for the “energy” of the
vacuum...”  Since I am the only one in the group saying that the vacuum has
tremendous energy density, I presume that the “stupid” idea needs to be
analyzed further.  It is actually very helpful to me to identify the exact
point where I lose people.  Therefore I have decided to expand my reasoning
into several steps to see exactly where I lose people.  

The attached PDF is only 1 ½ pages and it covers the first step in my
reasoning.  I specifically ask John W. to answer the yes or no question at
the end of the PDF.  However, I would really like any other interested
member of the group to also answer the yes or no question.  I will then know
how to proceed with the next installment.

John M.   

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 10:34 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk
<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> >; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org
<mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com
<mailto:kyran_williamson at hotmail.com> >; Manohar .
<manohar_berlin at hotmail.com <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> >; Joakim
Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> >; Ariane
Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

Dear all,

Before this degenerates into a free-for-all of wishful thinking – Al is
spot-on. At least to a very (very) good approximation. Experimentally,
pretty much all the action takes place right next to (existing) charges.
Even then, there pretty much needs to be at least two of them to get the
coupling to photons (hence Al saying H2 in place of e or P). Even near
particles, notwithstanding the stupid numbers bandied about for the “energy”
of the vacuum, the radiative corrections (due to virtual particles jumping
about in the vacuum) are miniscule. In probability terms, to first order
(usually called zero’th order), the main interaction (a la Maxwell) gives
you a probabilty factor of 1/137 for the emitter, 1/137 for the absorber and
then the usual geometric effects giving inverse square. The corrections
introduce an extra 1/137 squared AND give you evanescent attenuation
(exponential attenuation then) and all that to cope with their virtuality
etc. Maxwells equations are very (very) under-constrained as they stand.
They allow things to go not only in straight lines (our usual conception),
but also spheres, disks, cylinders, toroids, bispheres, parallel-plate
capacitors (solved by Maxwell, conformally), twisted wave-guides 
 pretty
much a spastic hamburger provided it is conformal and orthonormal so that
the definition of div, grad and curl can be achieved at a point. That is all
you need. Just as well because that is all you have. You may hope that QED
would fix this but this is a vain hope: QED only operates at all very near
to the (point) particles it presumes. All the action is in charge-charge
inter-actions. That something was emitted and subsequently absorbed in an
“event” is a-postiori. One can only say, a-priori, something about the
probability (as Hans commented) of such an event occurring over-all. Even
a-postiori one can only talk about the possible paths allowed point-to-point
by your world-view – your model.

Phased arrays (the sort of thing John M. was talking about) are not just
theoretical ideas. They are used, and have been used, in engineering
applications, for decades to either send out or detect directed light (or
radio waves more usually). One is still inter-acting with charges – albeit
collectively – when one talks about such systems. The coherence (and the
constraints) is in the engineered system.

If you want to go further than this you need to go beyond Maxwell and QED.
Not only this but you need to able to point to, either existing experiment
that is only explained by your new paradigm, or propose proper experiment to
test it. Otherwise it is not real.

My extra constraints of “absolute relativity”, do constrain light to come in
“lumps” over any distance, but do not constrain an axis – it still could be
anything (or everything at once!) provided the fixed-parameters of the
emission and absorption are satisfied. It does not predict light must go in
linear lines, but rather that non-quantised photons (or differently
quantized photons) should also exist if one can manipulate the emitter and
absorber into suitable collective systems.

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
[af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 2:16 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

Hi all:

Wave interaction (i.e., mutual modification of each other) only ocurrs where
and when they meet at a charge, which can be in a cavity wall, mirror, lens,
detector element, antenna, H2 in deep space, etc..   THERE IS NO WAY TO
EMPIRICALLY TELL WHAT AN IMAGINED WAVE IS DOING WHERE THERE IS NO CHARGE,
even while Maxwell's equs. describe propagation sucessessfully in terms of
what shows up at charges.

Here again, I'm just the mail man---Maxwell is talking.

Gesendet: Samstag, 15. August 2015 um 19:17 Uhr
Von: "John Macken" <john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com> >
An: "Nature of Light and Particles"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Betreff: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

David and A. F.,

First I will answer David.  You say that “conservation of momentum needs to
be conserved both externally and internally”.  It appears as if you are
referring to angular momentum when you say “internally”. I agree that both
types of momentum must be conserved and they are independent of each other.
When discussing the linear momentum imparted to an atom or microwave
antenna, it is possible to ignore angular momentum.  The angular momentum
can never mask the linear momentum that must be conserved.  Similarly, it is
possible to ignore linear momentum transfer when discussing angular momentum
transfer.

A.F. Kracklauer brings up an interesting point that I missed previously. He
says, “Isn't it the charges in the laser interacting, not the emitted
photons?”  One of the reasons that I partially qualified my previous answer
is because there is some interaction between the spherical waves being
emitted in the opposite direction to the wave propagation direction and the
charges in the atoms.  In a laser oscillator, standing waves are formed
because there is propagation in both directions. However, in an laser
amplifier the “propagating waves” are only propagating in one direction.
Still any one atom is emitting waves in all directions.  It is the waves
with a backwards component that is imparting momentum to the other atoms.
Similarly, the microwave antennas are emitting waves in all directions and
it is the backwards propagating components that are imparting momentum to
other atoms.

However, this does not destroy the main point. It is the phased emission of
spherical waves that results in a small component of the spherical wave
coherently adding to the other waves. The intensity is amplitude squared
which results in the well-defined laser beam or well-defined microwave beam.
Therefore, in my view this is an example of the interaction of waves.

On a related subject, I do not understand how it is possible to claim that
photons only interact with themselves.  When two different laser beams are
superimposed in a beam splitter, the output beams are amplitude modulated at
the beat frequency between the two laser beams.  I used to work with laser
radar systems and this was a daily occurrence.  The two different lasers
clearly are generating different photons, yet they interact with each other
when they are combined.  Even if the two beams from two lasers  merely
overlap with no beam splitter, the beat signal can be seen if a small
detector is inserted into the region where the beams overlap.  For greatest
signal, the area of a detector must be small enough that it only intercepts
one interference fringe.  Another alternative is to mask the detector so
that it sees multiple fringes but only sees either the even or odd numbered
fringes.  One of my better patents is based on this principle.

Finally, I would like to comment on the transfer of angular momentum
(David’s internal momentum).  I once did a calculation where I looked at the
torque force that needed to be exerted on a carbon monoxide molecule to
transfer the h bar angular momentum at the CO molecule’s fundamental
rotational frequency.  I do not remember the exact answer, but the torque
momentum that needed to be transferred to the CO molecule to accomplish the
angular momentum transfer was about 1,000,000 times greater than the linear
momentum transferred if it was assumed that the torque was exerted over the
radius of the CO molecule.  It only made sense if you assumed an interaction
radius equal to an object that was one wavelength in circumference.  This is
the same area as the interaction cross-section that Chandra mentioned for an
atom or molecule to absorption of a photon.  

I suspect that even linearly polarized photons have a wave structure that
carries a specific angular momentum as orbital angular momentum.  It
requires a special type of experiment to prove or disprove this contention.

John M.     

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 12:34 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

John

For any particle - mass or massless - conservation of momentum needs to be
conserved both externally and internally. 

Internal particle absorption of the recoil means one needs to attend to the
coupling between internal and external systems to provide a clear picture of
linear and angular momentum conservation.

David

  _____  

From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

David,

I did not read all the article, but I read enough to conclude that it does
not repeal the conservation of momentum.  If a photon is emitted, it is
carrying away momentum.  The emitting body must absorb the opposite moment.
If the emitting body is an isolated atom, then the recoiling atom has de
Broglie waves with exactly the same wavelength (same momentum) as the
emitted photon when observed from the atom’s original frame of reference.

However, this is somewhat off the major point which was that the interaction
of waves can determine the direction of emission of a photon’s quantized
energy.  In my way of looking at this, it is an example of waves
interacting.  

John M. 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:57 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

John M

The method you propose is classical not in keeping with recent papers on
radiation reaction, most notably a relativistic approach as derived by Fearn
2012 (one of Miloni's students now a professor)

 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4469> http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4469

The 3D amorphous phased array is a great gendanken. 2D phased arrays are
well known. However, 3D optical arrays suffer from all sorts of fields,
masses and energy transfers as well as dispersion issues. The reason folks
like the laser is due in part to the non-linearity effects that can be
produced. 

Furthermore, any approach may not produce a visible recoil since
conservation of momentum needs to be conserved both externally and
internally to a particle. Internal particle effects may "absorb" the recoil
whether at the atomic or elementary particle level. So one needs to attend
to both linear and angular momentum conservation.

Add to this is the potential associated with certain models using scalar
fields, and one ends up in GR where the speed of light is lower within the
amorphous array for whatever reason. 

Finally, there is the question of NIH vs interference, especially at light
like velocities.

Other than that, a great idea!

David

  _____  

From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

Hello All,

It was great meeting with all of you.  

I would like to introduce a different perspective to the discussion of the
interaction of light with a thought experiment.  Suppose that we have a
billion small microwave antennas randomly distributed in space.  The
antennas on average are separated by a distance equal to about 10% of the
wavelength that they will emit and the size of each antenna is much smaller
than a wavelength.  A billion of these antennas from a “cloud” about 100
wavelengths in diameter.  If each antenna emits randomly, then the total
cloud of antennas would emit an incoherent spherical emission pattern.
However, if all antennas emit the same frequency and if the phase is
properly controlled, then the emitted radiation can form a beam with a
divergence angle of about 0.01 radian.  Furthermore, the beam can be steered
to propagate in any direction with proper phase adjustment.  When the
emission forms a coherent beam, then the cloud of antennas feels momentum in
the opposite direction of the emitted radiation. This momentum would
accelerate the cloud of antennas in the recoil direction.

The example just given is a simulation of what happens in a laser.  Each
atom in the excited state can either emit a photon by spontaneous emission
or by stimulated emission.  When stimulated emission occurs, the emission is
still generally spherical, but the phase of emission is coordinated so that
part of the spherical emission is coherently added to the beam causing the
stimulated emission. The spherical emission of a single atom “interacts”
with the other waves to form a collimated beam propagating in a particular
direction. The force imparted to the emitting atom is random if the emission
is spontaneous or in a particular direction if it is stimulated.  

In my way of looking at this, this example satisfies a loose definition of
interaction of light waves.  I assume that there might be a way of looking
at this in which it can be argued that there was no interaction of waves,
but this position will require stretching of definitions.  

John M.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:58 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg
<mules333 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

Andrew

One paper that might be of interest is:

 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5897> arXiv:1205.5897 [
<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5897> pdf]

Spin and Orbital Angular Momenta of Light Reflected from a Cone

 <http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Mansuripur_M/0/1/0/all/0/1> Masud
Mansuripur,  <http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Zakharian_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>
Armis R. Zakharian,
<http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Wright_E/0/1/0/all/0/1> Ewan M. Wright

Another paper is:

Fearn 2012  <http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4469> [1212.4469] Radiation Reaction
Force on a Particle

David

From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg
<mules333 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Light from Light reflection

Forgot the paper.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
wrote:

Gentlemen,

In discussions after Bob Hudgins' presentation on Wednesday, I realized that
we had been too close to the problem (and solution) and did not recognize
the information gap that existed within the community. The reference was
with regards to the nature of light-light interaction. The paper by Dowling
(attached) identifies the problem between the NIW school and the light-light
interaction school.

It is necessary to emphasize and clarify some points.

1.	Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, 
2.	he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission. 
3.	Mathematically the results are identical. 
4.	In Dowling's paper, he demonstrates that even identical components
of colliding waves have this property. 
5.	The difference of the colliding waves always is transmitted, not
reflected. 
6.	Therefore, when added to the identical portion (that is the
reflected part), the sum becomes equivalent to a transmitted wave. 
7.	The paper showed that the differences could be in: 

7.     

1.      phase 

2.      amplitude 

3.      polarity 

4.      change in frequency 

Thus, while Chandra's NIW view is almost always correct, if based on numbers
alone, there is a growing field (based on lasers), which proves that
interaction of identical light goes beyond Dirac's statement that photons
can only interact with themselves. With this new information, it is possible
to view ordinary light from a different perspective. "Any identical portions
of light beams can (and will) reflect from each other." 

An example of this can be demonstrated by an introductory-physics  device
(Newton's cradle,  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation ). Only if equal numbers
of balls are dropped simultaneously will there be reflection of the same
number as the input. If unequal numbers are dropped simultaneously, then it
would appear that the larger number of balls is transmitted thru the set of
balls. No one would say that the balls travel thru the stationary balls.
Momentum reflection is the obvious answer in this case - and in the case of
light. 

Had Dowling remembered this demonstration, he would have been able to say
with absolute authority that light can reflect from light. The appendix of
our paper is a mathematical proof of the null-momentum point in the center
of the 'dark' zone for equal waves. This is the wave equivalent of the
equal-particle demonstration.

My task for the next conference may be to demonstrate how this reflection
effect affects the photon structure within the electron.

Andrew

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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 af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>  Click
here to unsubscribe
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150818/a3053336/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1339 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150818/a3053336/attachment.png>