[General] gravitation

Mon Feb 23 14:34:24 PST 2015

Hi John W.

Thank you once again. This is much easier to envision.

All

Thank you for bearing with me through the series of questions.  It seemed to
me, for a while, that something was wrong with the photon exchange theory.
But you have all helped me to better understand a causal approach which
seems to resolve the issue.

Thank you Martin.

Thank you Stephen.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:11 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

Hello Chip and everyone,

Relax. This does not mean the whole universe is pre-determined. The photon
does not have to see its whole future. One only requires that the absorber
sees all of its past. This is a much less stringent criterion, but means the
same thing in terms of  causality.  Think about it.

John.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:23 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

Chip, take a deep breath.

A photon has a mass. Light is heavy. Energy is exactly the same thing as
mass, the units differ by c^2, that is all. E=mc^2 is NOT, I say NOT
describing a reaction where energy is converted into mass or vice versa. In
the famous Eddington experiment, light from a star is GRAVITATIONALLY
deflected by the sun (and the sun is pulled aside by the photon, a very,
very tiny little bit)

This is really how it is.

Photons sometimes are said to have no REST mass. But the buggers just cannot
sit still, now can they? It is a rather loose and confusing statement that
is only true in some unphysical  limit.

But photons can be put in a box, and then put on a scale to weigh them:
m=hf/c^2

Really, I am not pulling your leg, I just want to spare you a lot of waist
of energy. eh mass? ;-)

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] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 15:09
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

Hi Stephen

Thank you for the critique.  I really appreciate the belief aspect which can
cause us to stray from science. I think that most of us are looking at the
current understanding and asking if it is valid, probably for a variety of
reasons. Searching for answers and probing a wider range of possibilities,
rather than just accepting whatever the current general set of beliefs are,
is this also not science?

Actually, I am quite satisfied to accept the full answers wherever they lead
us.

The requirement to conserve energy is not violated by my proposal, Photons
are absorbed whenever they are incident upon an acceptable absorber.  Maybe
it depends on the definition of "absorber".  In my opinion it is entirely
acceptable to space to be the destination for a photon. And yes, I feel the
"edge" of space is "curved" which preserves the conservation of energy.

When a theory does not seem to adequately explain the observable universe,
it seems to be appropriate to question that theory.

For several reasons, some of which are touched on below, I feel there may
well be another solution which provides for the observations of experiment.

One thing that seems to bother me, is when we find infinities in our
theories.  It does not seem to be an infinity paranoia, but rather a
tendency to question the validity of the argument which brought us to adopt
the infinite solution, if another solution exists. 

OK, perhaps "infinity paranoia" is an appropriate description.

If matter is made from light, most of the basic principles of relativity
would be the natural result. Our observations would hold that the physical
laws do not change across different reference frames, that the speed of
light will be measured as a constant, and that matter cannot travel at the
speed of light.

The following thoughts are based upon the concept that matter is made from
light, particles are made from photons.

Our measurement of time would then be based on the frequencies of particles
and their resultant interactions in our inertial frame. In that sense the
photon would be the physical generator of time, or the underlying mechanism
which creates time.

Time, as we are able to measure or define it, for a single photon then
becomes a difficult issue to try to determine, from the "inertial" frame of
the photon.  The photon has no "inertial frame" since it has no mass and no
therefore no inertia.  Yes it has energy and momentum but that is not the
same thing. 

Trying to stretch relativity, which is designed to relate how matter reacts
with light, spacetime, and other matter, and try to apply the same rules of
relativity which work for matter, to the photon, which is the cause of
creation for the principle of relativity, and the foundation and cause of
creation for the property of time, may be an error.

As an analogy, a photon has no mass, but creates mass when confined into a
particle. So it is not prudent to try to calculate the mass term for the
free photon in the same manner we use for particles or matter, like E=mc2.
The photon is the reason the term E=mc2 would work for matter.  The photon
however, being the source, which is to say, the cause for the mass term for
matter, lies outside that definition of mass. In this sense it is part of
the definition of the property of mass, and in a similar way, it is part of
the definition of the property of time. 

So, in that sense, the fields and forces which comprise the photon, cannot
be relativistic in the normal sense of the term. The EM fields are quite
naturally propagating at the speed of light, but they create the property of
relativity due to their specific interactions with space and their natural
reactions within particles.

Returning to the view that EM fields, with their inherent properties, make
up photons and all particles, create inertial mass, create the circumstances
for "time" as we know it, and create the principle of relativity, we must
then conclude that relativistic treatment of these waves is entirely
unnecessary, and in fact, an error. Just as it would be an error to flatly
state that the mass of a free photon is m=E/ c2.

It is my view that spacetime only supports, at the most basic level, one
form of energy. That energy is always in the form of EM waves.  Likewise I
feel the photon is the simplest, most elemental form of that EM energy. So
then, the photon is simply the fields of the EM waves, with the inherent
forces and energy density allowed by the energy in the photon and spacetime.
It follows then that these circumstances engender the properties of the
photon, like speed of propagation, spin angular momentum, polarization, etc.

I think we were faced with problematic behaviors while studying the photon,
and reached for, and misapplied, an apparent "solution", to "explain" those
behaviors. Relativistic treatment of the photon allowed us to find one
"solution" which implies that emitters and absorbers are identified prior to
emission.  The vast implications of that "solution" just simply do not seem
to describe our universe.  So yes, I will continue to search for other
possible solutions which can explain experiment. And yes, this search is
motivated in part by belief.  But I suspect that is one of the motivations
behind almost all research.  The issue becomes, can we change our beliefs,
once we discover a solution which does in fact fit all criteria of the
observable.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Stephen Leary
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:16 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] gravitation

Hi  Chip, 

There is experimental evidence to suggest that the emission of a photon is
dependent on there being a pre-defined absorber. This is pretty much a
requirement to conserve energy as photons would "miss" otherwise and
eventually all energy would be photons and there would be no matter. You
seem to be falling into the trap of only looking at the evidence that
supports your beliefs. That is not science.

Regards

Stephen

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

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: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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
<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 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

  _____  

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/a1437637/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/a1437637/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/a1437637/attachment-0003.png>