[General] gravitation

Sun Feb 22 03:57:33 PST 2015

Chip:

The reference rest frame is the CMB frame, see the CMBR dipole anisotropy on Wikipedia. You can use it to gauge your motion with respect to the universe. It isn’t an absolute reference frame in the strict sense, but the universe is as absolute as it gets. 

As for the length of the photon, I too favour the Drozdov and Stahlhofen idea. But I can appreciate what those other people are saying. For example, I’ve likened the photon to a seismic wave, but when an earthquake occurs, the ground shakes back and forth repeatedly. It doesn’t move left a metre then right a metre and then stop. Or take a look at the hydrogen 22cm line cause by an electron spin flip: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/h21.html. Then get an elastic band and stretch it over your finger and thumb, poke a short pencil through it, flip the pencil over, and let go: dub a dub a dub a dub a dub a dub a dub!

Regards
John D 

From: Chip Akins 
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

Hi All

Following John Duffield’s comments regarding photon’s relation to “time” and reading “The Other Meaning of Special Relativity”, still leaves a few questions (for my feeble mental processes), relating to correlating theory to experiment.

My approach has been precisely as described by Robert Close, regarding the photon constituted mass carrying particles, clearly displaying relativistic properties naturally, due to their wave (photon) structure.

There appears to be a significant amount of evidence supporting such an approach.

Underlying that approach, and as an implication of the results, is the suggestion that there is (even if we cannot detect it) a reference rest frame in space. Close therefore remarks, “What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time.”

So, like John D., I am still looking for, and willing to exhaustively pursue, any possible explanations for experiment, which are built on such an approach, before abandoning such a robust, simple, and elegant, causal approach.  But I cannot ignore the compelling arguments from John Williamson, Martin van der Mark, Stephen Leary. So at this time certain issues remain (for me) unresolved.

While our discussions of the photon and possible various relativistic interpretations, to describe experiment, are quite stimulating and thought provoking.  In my current view, the idea that a photon can feel its entire future, at one point in spacetime, raises more problems than it solves. While the “one point in spacetime” approach, may in fact turn out to be the actual nature of physics, I feel it is required to look for other explanations, and there are many possibilities we can explore, before accepting any answer to best describe experiment.

Hi Stephen

Thank you for the analogy. 

Of course to test any idea, we need to look at the full range of applications of the idea.

I can understand the photon exchange, hinted by your analogy, for a distance which is easily within the field of the emitters and absorbers, or a distance where the mutual field strength is sufficiently above the “background” noise floor.  

However for me it does not seem to hold for large distances.  In other words, I feel that for close range photon exchange, the fields are sufficiently strong to have an influence on such photon exchange.  Tony Fleming has created a model for the hydrogen atom using a variation of such an approach, which is very accurate at predicting the properties of this atom. “Electromagnetic Self-Field Theory and Its Application to the Hydrogen Atom” Anthony Fleming 2005.

However for very large distances, it seems to me that photon “exchange” is not a pre-required condition, and that photon emission is quite acceptable even if the eventual absorber is not already known at emission. I do not yet feel, that a photon can only exist, if the absorber is already “known” by the photon.

Hi John D.  

Thank you for the references to photon models. 

Having toyed with certain photon models, the one described by Drozdov and Stahlhofen has been very close to my preferred model.  But it leaves questions raised by some experimental observation unanswered.   However I have not looked closely at the full set of implications regarding the possibility that a viable photon model may also exist, encompassing multiples of its wavelength. To explore, we might be able to model the emission duration for certain events, and compare that estimated duration to the emitted photon wavelength.  Meanwhile, I will run some math to explore further.

Hi Chandra

I agree with your approach and comments regarding our quest.

And referring directly to…

“If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of nature; we will never find it!”

The group has begun addressing specific issues, from different viewpoints, which enhance our individual, and therefore collective, ability to look more clearly at the problems, and the implications of different views, and therefore review the possibilities in a more complete manner.

Thank you for your tremendous assistance and contribution to this process.

All

It appears we have a consensus for material substance (mass carrying particles) from light.

If we do have a consensus for building matter from light (photons), then it seems we must better understand the photon, for the photon then becomes the foundation for everything. So that misconceptions in the understanding of the photon, would propagate to the entire concept.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

Andrew:

It’s a mystery to me why people don’t know about this kind of stuff. Einstein said a field is a state of space. Susskind said the same in his video lecture. And there aren’t two states of space where an electron is.

As for the strong force, it’s supposed to be fundamental. So ask yourself this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? And ask yourself this: what is it that makes the electromagnetic wave propagate at c? Alternatively, imagine you can hold this electron in your hands like a bagel. 

Imagine it’s elastic, like the bag model. Try to pull it apart. You will find that you cannot. You can’t pull this kiddie apart either:

It’s made of three parts, three partons. See http://www.ipmu.jp/webfm_send/1053 and note page 11 where Witten mentions knot crossings? Trace round it clockwise starting at the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up up down. When you do eventually break this thing, you don’t see three things flying free.  

Regards

John D 

From: Andrew Meulenberg 

Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 

Subject: [General] gravitation

Dear John D,

I wonder why this concept has not been developed?

"The clockwise and anticlockwise twists don’t quite cancel. The rubber sheet is subject to a tension that diminishes with distance. That represents the hydrogen atom’s gravitational field."

I came to this conclusion several years ago that gravitation was the long-range, non-torsional, 'residue' of the strong EM fields composing the net-neutral charge fields of matter. This came from thinking (non-mathematically) about the differences between the E & M forces as distortions of space & how relativity affects them.

I hope to write-up a paper on strong-gravity (after the conference in August), that describes the nuclear strong force as resulting from the interacting short-range (multipole) fields of the relativistic electron-positron 'clusters' (triplets?) called quarks.

Andrew

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.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 johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.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/20150222/ec32042d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 20056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150222/ec32042d/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 28369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150222/ec32042d/attachment-0003.png>