[General] Charge Conversion Constant

Wed Aug 19 14:47:33 PDT 2015

Hello Everyone,

The answers that I have received are very helpful in understanding the
tactic that I must use to explain my ideas.  What I have learned from the
answers given so far is that the respondents have no trouble accepting that
EM radiation encounters the impedance of free space: Zo = 377 ohms. However,
the group does not accept that gravitational waves encounter impedance of Zs
= c3/G =4x1035 kg/s.  Therefore, one goal is to prove that Zo is actually
equivalent to Zs.  However, I am also interested in going further and
proving or disproving the validity of the charge conversion constant.  This
is actually a wonderful goal because it has the possibility of generating
some new physics insights that might have far reaching implications.

Here is the situation.  I have generated what I call my “charge conversion
constant”.  I have tested this constant by converting a few constants and
equations to the properties of spacetime. When I test complete equations,
the equations give the same answers when I convert everything to the
properties of spacetime.  Also, when I convert constants containing units of
coulomb to properties of spacetime, they yield surprises but reasonable
answers.  So far, I have not had anyone else comment on this proposed
conversion constant even though the paper containing the charge conversion
constant has had hundreds of downloads.

Therefore, here is the picture.  Physicists talk about electric fields and
charge as if they are a mysterious property that cannot be conceptually
understood or mathematically analyzed at a deeper level.  I am proposing
that spacetime is the most basic property of the universe.  It is not
necessary to assume that spacetime has any particular energy density in
order to test whether the charge conversion constant works to express
electric field, magnetic field, charge and photons as a distortion of
spacetime. 

I am either right or wrong about the validity of the charge conversion
constant.  If I am wrong, then someone in this group should be able to find
the flaw.  If I am right, then this group should be able to find additional
proofs and perhaps uncover some fundamental new insights into the
electromagnetic properties of nature. At the very least, it should be
possible to prove or disprove whether the impedance of free space converts
to the impedance of spacetime.  If this can be rigorously proven, then this
would be a major breakthrough for physics.  

I have attached the same PDF as I sent yesterday.  It is 3 pages, but the
key points concerning the charge conversion constant are contained in the
first page and a half. I appreciate any help that you can give and it is
possible that it could lead to some important new insights.

John M.         

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:31 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

Hello John M,

I'm flattered that you think I may be able to provide a definitive answer to
your question:

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

I would like a yes or no answer from John W. and anyone else that is
interested in this subject. 

I would love to be able to answer this but I'm afraid my answer is mu (unask
the question).  This is not just sitting on the fence. The question is
simply model dependent. It is a simple matter, for any waving model, to
derive a value for an "impedance", but what comes out depends on what goes
in. In your model both "c" and "G" have gone in (as well as a lot more
besides). The "lot more", for those of you who have not yet managed to get
round to reading John M's 400 page opus, includes a lot more fundamental
constants, as well as some implicit properties of the underlying model of
space as high mass-energy jello. One important implicit property is that
vibrations are presumed to conserve volume (please correct me if I am wrong
here John), but are otherwise based on a model of space as a massive elastic
medium. Within the context of the model, then, it is not surprising that
there exists an impedance c cubed/G. 

Now this is all fine- theories are just stuff we make up - but one would
rather get such things as G out, rather than put them in a-priori. In any
case the impedance is not more fundamental than the constants used to derive
it - and one is still left with explaining where these come from.

As I have said before - if one wants to replace generally accepted physics
with a new model it should be at least as good - if not better - than the
thing it is trying to replace. The John M model seems to me analogic to
something pretty simple - a model of a massive, homogeneous elastic medium.
I think you need to get to grips with explaining all of the properties
observed - or getting to the starting point of theories which are consistent
with known data.

I am no expert here (my expertise is in QM RQM QFT and quantum transport
more than GenRel) but it seems to me that a model where whatever is
responsible for gravity moves at c there are important consequences. One
fairly trivial one for a large class of theories is, for example, if
lightspeed stuff cannot get out of a black hole (if they exist), then
neither can "gravity". Light is red-shifted as it climbs out of
gravitational well - so too should be any gravitational disturbance with the
same properties.  Does this modify space and time or not? Thoughts John?

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Adam K [afokay at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:19 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

Hi John M,  

I've enjoyed this thread and just wanted to toss in a quote which I think
you will appreciate: 

In Einstein's theory of gravitation matter and its dynamical interaction are
based on the notion of an intrinsic geometric structure of the space-time
continuum. The ideal aspiration, the ultimate aim, of the theory is nor more
and not less than this: A four-dimensional continuum endowed with certain
intrinsic geometric structure, a structure that is subject to certain
inherent purely geometrical laws, is to be an adequate model or picture of
the 'real world around us in space and time' with all that it contains and
including its total behaviour, the display of all events going on in it... 

At any rate the very foundation of the theory, viz. the basic principle of
equivalence of acceleration and a gravitational field, clearly means that
there is no room for any kind of 'force' to produce acceleration save
gravitation, which however is not to be regarded as a force but resides on
the geometry of space-time. Thus in fact, though not always in the wording,
the mystic concept of force is wholly abandoned. Any 'agent' whatsoever,
producing ostensible accelerations, does do qua amounting to an
energy-momentum tensor and via the gravitational field connected with the
latter... This has, of course, the consequence that in such a case we are in
patent need of field-laws for the matter-tensor (e.g. for the
electromagnetic field), laws that one would also like to conceive as purely
geometrical restrictions on the structure of space-time. These laws the
theory of 1915 does not yield...

Schrodinger, Space-Time Structure, Cambridge University Press, 1950 pp. 1-2.

This is a very long story, as I am sure you appreciate, starting with
Kaluza-Klein and going up to now. Einstein spent the last half of his life
going in exactly this direction. He had astonishing intuition and wrote in a
letter that he was 'completely convinced' that matter etc. reduced to
spacetime deformations. As an undergrad one of my physics teachers waxed
philosophical and asked... What is a field? Ever since I realized the import
of Einstein's 1915 theory however, I have been of the opinion that Einstein
settled this question. 

I think it is a mistake to assume electromagnetism without taking gravity
into account. I'm excited to download your papers and take a look. 

Best wishes,

Adam

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi John M.

Thank you for your reply, and your defense of the suggested method of
calculating the impedance of space.

First, I want to insure you that I am not satisfied with just using the
concept that an electron (fermion) can be formed of the same energy in space
as a photon of the correct energy level. And clearly, neither is Chandra,
for he proposes a complex tension field of space.

And I want to let you know that I feel that an understanding of just what
space is, is very important to me, and obviously to some of the others in
the group, so that we can understand exactly how and why we sense the
fields, forces, and particles, in the particular way that nature exhibits to
us.

But my approach to this complex problem is different than yours has been.
That is not to say that I feel your approach is of no value, on the
contrary.  I admire the specific way you have tackled and worked on the
problem. Your work has been an inspiration in that regard.  And I think you
may have added a bit of clarity to the solutions we seek.

While, given the evidence, and understanding the causes and nature of waves,
in a basic form, it is probably reasonable to assume that gravitational
waves exist. The kinematics of the system of a pair of stars, and what we
know, indicate that gravitational waves are likely. But we have never
observed gravitational waves. And we therefore do not know how fast they
travel. For me, there is more than one possibility here regarding the
specific cause and nature of gravity.

So for me it seems to be building an entire theory on a foundation of
initial speculation, even though the speculation and assumptions seem that
they may be reasonable, there may easily be something in this that we do not
yet have right.

So I prefer to start with things which have been measured, and to make as
few assumptions as possible, when building a model for space.

Your logic and findings are very interesting, but it seems that there are
important details and predictions missing from your model which MUST be
present in any accurate and reasonably complete model of space.  My
objective, while working toward modeling space, is not just to come up with
a model which seems to explain some of the known properties. But rather a
model which gives us clear insight into the major mysteries.  Gravity, fine
structure, magnetism, electric fields, electric charge, the velocity of
light, the velocity of gravitational waves, etc.  The more constants we have
to put into a model, the less useful it is. The more constants which are a
natural result of a model, which come out of a model, the more useful it is.
If we do the model correctly, it seems we will have very few starting
postulates, and very few starting properties to insert, and the rest will
emerge naturally from the model. Those starting postulates and properties,
when we find them, will be some of the nuggets of gold we are seeking.

Warm Regards

Chip

From: General [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:26 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

Hello John D, David and Chip,

Thank you for responding.  I welcome any additional answers.

I was not expecting the answers that I got.  Since I use some equations, I
have responded in the attached 2 PDFs.  The first one (Impedance of
Spacetime Continued) is a 1 ½ page answer and the second PDF is a 3 page
detailed explanation taken from one of my papers. 

John M. 

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:10 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

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>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: 18 August 2015 01:22
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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>
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 <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey < <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>
nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth < <mailto:abooth at ieee.org>
abooth at ieee.org>; Kyran Williamson < <mailto:kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>
kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>; Manohar . <
<mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Joakim
Pettersson < <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> joakimbits at gmail.com>; Ariane
Mandray < <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> 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=
<mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of
<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> 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:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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" < <mailto:john at macken.com> john at macken.com>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles" <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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>
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 <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> john at macken.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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 [ <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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 <
<http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> 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 < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> john at macken.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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 [ <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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 <
<http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
Andrew Meulenberg < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> 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 < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> mules333 at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
<http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
Andrew Meulenberg < <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> 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 <
<http://UrlBlockedError.aspx> 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  <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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  <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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  <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> Click here
to unsubscribe 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150819/7eab6892/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 10061 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150819/7eab6892/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Charge Conversion Constant.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 171750 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150819/7eab6892/attachment.pdf>