[General] Charge Conversion Constant
David Mathes
davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 19 22:32:47 PDT 2015
John
e == permittivityu == permeability
Therefore, c^3/G is a relationship between EM and G. Then whether or not there is the gravitational impedance at is a function of local permittivity.
You may want to look at GEM Unification Theory (Brandenburg) where gravity is at least proportional to the Poynting vector, P, and as a result may be wavelength dependant.
P = E X M
David
From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
To: 'David Mathes' <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Charge Conversion Constant
#yiv1456127732 #yiv1456127732 -- _filtered #yiv1456127732 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv1456127732 #yiv1456127732 p.yiv1456127732MsoNormal, #yiv1456127732 li.yiv1456127732MsoNormal, #yiv1456127732 div.yiv1456127732MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1456127732 a:link, #yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1456127732 a:visited, #yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1456127732 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1456127732 p.yiv1456127732msonormal, #yiv1456127732 li.yiv1456127732msonormal, #yiv1456127732 div.yiv1456127732msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1456127732 p.yiv1456127732msochpdefault, #yiv1456127732 li.yiv1456127732msochpdefault, #yiv1456127732 div.yiv1456127732msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732msohyperlink {}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732emailstyle18 {}#yiv1456127732 p.yiv1456127732msonormal1, #yiv1456127732 li.yiv1456127732msonormal1, #yiv1456127732 div.yiv1456127732msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732emailstyle181 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv1456127732 p.yiv1456127732msochpdefault1, #yiv1456127732 li.yiv1456127732msochpdefault1, #yiv1456127732 div.yiv1456127732msochpdefault1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1456127732 span.yiv1456127732EmailStyle28 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv1456127732 .yiv1456127732MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv1456127732 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1456127732 div.yiv1456127732WordSection1 {}#yiv1456127732 _filtered #yiv1456127732 {}#yiv1456127732 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1456127732 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1456127732 David, I must admit that I am not sure about your last email. Part of the problem is that I am not sure of the symbols that you are using. Since I am using mathematical symbols that are not supported by some emails, I have placed the rest of this communication in the attached PDF document. John M.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:27 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Charge Conversion Constant John I'll stipulate that gravitational waves encounter an impedance of c^3/G per Blair 1991 (paper) and Blair 2012 (book). With the premise of I(g) = c^3/G, there is a coupling between the EM permittivity and permeability and the G constant. I(g) = c^3/G Using c = (e u)^-2 we have I(g) = (e u)^-6/G In this equation, can one assume that the zero vacuum is constant throughout the universe? Does one have to assume a zero vacuum? David
From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Charge Conversion Constant 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.natureoflightandparticles.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 SpacetimeHi 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> 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:general-bounces+chipakins=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' <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] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:10 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <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. RegardsJohn 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 reflectionHi 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 reflectionDavid 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 ConeMasud Mansuripur, Armis R. Zakharian, Ewan M. WrightAnother 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.
- Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However,
- he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission.
- Mathematically the results are identical.
- In Dowling's paper, he demonstrates that even identical components of colliding waves have this property.
- The difference of the colliding waves always is transmitted, not reflected.
- Therefore, when added to the identical portion (that is the reflected part), the sum becomes equivalent to a transmitted wave.
- 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 afokay at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150820/d6b3f63f/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/20150820/d6b3f63f/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list