[General] the edge of the universe

John Duffield johnduffield at btconnect.com
Mon Feb 23 03:33:55 PST 2015


Martin:

I tend to draw parallels between the universe and a black hole, but in my humble opinion there are some issues with the way black holes are usually described. I like to think that this little gedankenexperiment helps to tease it out: 

You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out?

Regards
John D


From: Mark, Martin van der 
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe

Guys,

The universe has an edge in some sense, it is in fact a black hole, nothing can escape (even by definition). It tries to expand, light it going outwards but is held back just as in a “common” black hole.

It is impossible to reach the edge. But would you manage to get there somehow, the new edge has shifted a bit further…it is our good old horizon again!

Cheers, 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

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: zondag 22 februari 2015 17:29
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe

 

Chip:

 

Now you mention it, I think the universe has to have some kind of edge. I wrote something speculative about it here. WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any curvature or any toroidal topology , and IMHO an infinite universe can not be an expanding universe, because then the energy-pressure would be counterbalanced at all locations. If it isn’t curved round on itself and if it doesn’t go on forever, there’s not a lot of options left: it has to have some kind of edge. Such that there is no space beyond this edge, there is no beyond it. As for what it’s like, I don’t know. Maybe the universe is some kind of hall-of-mirrors thing, like mentioned here. Maybe there’s some kind of event horizon, maybe it’s none of the above, I don’t know. But what I do know is this: cosmologists use the surface of a sphere as an example of something without an edge, even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any higher dimensionality. It occurs to me that they’re like the old flat-Earth guys in reverse. It is alleged that in ancient times people could not conceive of a world without an edge. Nowadays cosmologists can not conceive of a world with an edge.      

 

Regards

John D

 

 

From: Chip Akins 

Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 

Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

 

Hi Stephen

 

Thank you for the insight.

 

What I am saying however, is that emission of a photon, may not be dependent on there being a pre-identified absorber. But rather, that if the local field conditions of the emitter allow emission in a specific direction, then a photon could be emitted. The local field herein would be defined as the area around the emitter wherein the fields from absorbers are still strong enough to be even slightly sensed by the emitter.

 

Since we do not yet know if there is an “edge” to the universe (meaning an “edge” of space-time), nor do we know the nature of such an “edge” should it exist. It may not add clarity to our perceptions to try to contemplate the possible actions of photons in that location. But my feeling is that, if we envision an edge exists, the void beyond would present no fields to an adjacent particle sufficiently close to that edge, and therefore no condition for emission would be presented.

 

What I am having some trouble digesting is the concept that, regardless of distance or time, an emitter and absorber are pre-identified prior to photon “exchange”.  I understand the concept, but the implications do not seem to be a description of our universe. 

 

For, if every photon in flight, at this instant, had identified its specific absorber prior to or at emission, then the exact location of all absorbers, the future position of every particle or atom, meaning our exact fate, was known and established billions of years ago.

 

Is there another way to look at long distance photon “exchange” which does not present this problem?

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:30 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

 

Hi Chip, 

 

I request you add the following question to your thinking and see how it fits in. Consider matter at the "edge" of the universe (by that i mean that there is no matter beyond and make that explicit assumption). Is that matter allowed/able to emit photons in any direction regardless of whether they are ever absorbed?

 

IMHO they cannot do this. Similarly for long distance photons I don't see the issue. It just reduces the likelyhood of interaction. 

 

Regards

Stephen

 

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

  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 sleary at vavi.co.uk
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
  Click here to unsubscribe
  </a>





 

-- 

Stephen Leary


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

_______________________________________________
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>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20150223/5dc9c9b8/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/20150223/5dc9c9b8/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/20150223/5dc9c9b8/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the General mailing list