[General] Impedance of Spacetime

Wed Aug 19 15:14:05 PDT 2015

Pavel, this may be helpful in expanding on your ideas, the integrals are the same for gravitation...
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

-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Pavel OŠMERA
Sent: dinsdag 18 augustus 2015 10:19
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

Hi,
 What do you think about this idea about gravity?

GRAVITY AS DECREASE OF GRAVUM PRESSURE BY FRACTAL-RING STRUCTURED MATTER

We tried to explain the basic principle of the gravity without a curved space or virtual gravitons. In our hypothesis gravum is a space without inner kinetic energy of fractal structured matter. We did not use the name vacuum for this space because it has different and disunited definitions. To distinguish our imagination from traditional one we suggest new name for this space: gravum. All objects that have fractal-ring structured matter decrease black energy by their inner kinetic energy. Two objects are attracted due to their decreased gravum pressure around them.

more in:

http://www.pavelosmera.cz/public/files/Mendel2012_gravitace_p_198.pdf

Pavel

----- Původní zpráva -----
Od: "John Duffield" <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
Komu: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Odesláno: úterý, 18. srpen 2015 9:09:50
Předmět: Re: [General] Impedance of Spacetime

Do you accept that spacetime has impedance of about c 3 /G?

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

Z_0 = \frac{E}{H} = \mu_0 c_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\varepsilon_0}} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0 c_0}

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.natureoflightandparticles.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 >
Cc: Nick Bailey < nick at bailey-family.org.uk >; Anthony Booth < abooth at ieee.org >; Kyran Williamson < kyran_williamson at hotmail.com >; Manohar . < manohar_berlin at hotmail.com >; Joakim Pettersson < joakimbits at gmail.com >; Ariane Mandray < 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.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 2:16 AM
To: 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 >
An: "Nature of Light and Particles" < 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 >
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

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:

arXiv:1205.5897 [ pdf ]

Spin and Orbital Angular Momenta of Light Reflected from a Cone

Masud Mansuripur , Armis R. Zakharian , Ewan M. Wright

Another paper is:

Fearn 2012 [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 ). 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-natureoflightandparticles.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-natureoflightandparticles.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-natureoflightandparticles.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 Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at osmera at fme.vutbr.cz <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/osmera%40fme.vutbr.cz?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 <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>

________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: arxiv_1211.6072v1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 452551 bytes
Desc: arxiv_1211.6072v1.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150819/d5cb376a/attachment.pdf>