[General] the edge of the universe
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 05:57:35 PST 2015
Hi Martin
I think you are right regarding the "edge" of our universe. This has been my
perception of the possible sort of "confinement" of our universe as well. So
that we, from inside of our universe, would find it hard to perceive an
"edge" to this curvature.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:37 AM
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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.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
<http://bogpaper.com/science-sundays-with-john-duffield-edge-of-the-universe
/> here. WMAP says the universe is flat, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5086>
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 <http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/> 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: <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> Chip Akins
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM
To: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> '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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] 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
<mailto: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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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 <http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html> 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> 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: <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM
To: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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
<mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/sleary%40vavi.co.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150223/211a5a91/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/20150223/211a5a91/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/20150223/211a5a91/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the General
mailing list