[General] gravitation

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Martin, John W., John D., Chip, and all,

My initial introduction to parts of this discussion was over multiple
beers. It probably needs it. However, the concepts from those seeds have
grown over the years.

I think that we need to go where the Nature of Light series may not have
yet tread. Consider EM radiation in 3 forms (in my present view):

   1. Source-bound - this is the Maxwell's equations form
   2. free   -  this is the 'classical' photon
   3. self-bound - this is the source of all matter.

1. the EM field from an oscillating dipole does not 'radiate' (become
unbound) except under special conditions. It remains 'attached' to the
source as a standing (evanescent) wave. It also constitutes the
relativistic-added mass (and causes relativistic electrons to 'shrink' in
size, just as a light wave (photon) can shrink in length with the addition
of more frequencies from the Fourier analysis?)

2. the photon does not 'see' time in its own frame. In this version, it can
travel either direction in time. It can travel across the universe and its
energy can be absorbed with the reemission of the induced photon that, 180
degrees out of phase, travels back along the identical path in time and
space 'erasing' itself. I don't completely subscribe to this model.
However, it does appear to be self-consistent and creation of a coherent
laser beam is not a bad model for the obverse of this action).

My preference is for the photon to be a self-propagating (solitonic),
resonant, wave that can move w/o loss thru space at a fixed velocity for
the medium encountered.

3. the self-bound photon is what we have been discussing as the basis of
matter (from my viewpoint becoming the electron positron pair). My ideas
are continuing to evolve with these discussions. The wormhole connecting
the charge pair, during creation, can eventually 'close' (leaving the
charged monopoles), just as the bound EM wave can eventually radiate
(producing the photon). The timing and conditions for both are energy and
statistics dependent.


I do not see how we can discuss light w/o discussing all of its nature,
including its self-interaction. Likewise, we cannot discuss matter w/o
discussing its origins and characteristics in light. Too many models have
been proposed w/o sufficient information. We still may not have all we need
to get the full picture. Nevertheless, we are much further along than we
were a century ago and should take advantage of that additional knowledge
to 'update' our models.

Andrew




On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

>  Hi Chip, yes the Coulomb field seems to have infinite speed. Seems. Have
> to come back to that, there is something in the Feynman Lectures about it,
> there is something with Lienhard Wiechert potentials.... Must reeducate
> myself. Thanks for the paper.
>
> Later!
>
> 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 *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* maandag 23 februari 2015 20:46
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation
>
>
>
> Hi Martin
>
>
>
> Thank you for the comments and insight.  So many times, since the late
> 1970's I have revisited the original EPR paradox concept. Physics has in
> many ways matured since then. Still there seem to be components of the
> range of possible solutions, which have not been fully explored.  Take for
> example the experiment in the attached paper "*Measuring Propagation
> Speed of Coulomb Fields*".
>
>
>
> While the speed of light (propagation of EM waves) is apparently not
> affected by a superluminal Coulomb field, if such properties exist for
> Coulomb fields, if the implications are fully explored, it might explain
> many of the experimental observations.
>
>
>
> My question regarding photon exchange for very large distances is
> difficult for me to comprehend.  Do you have any insight in that area?
>
>
>
> The way it seems to me, requiring photon exchange, by requiring the
> absorber be identified prior to emission, also requires that the full
> current state of the universe was known billions of years ago??? And
> likewise, the future is predetermined for billions of years because photons
> are continuously being emitted with destinations across this vast universe.
>
>
>
> Is this implication invalid?  If it is invalid, can you explain why?
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 12:21 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] gravitation
>
>
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> I do understand your position, things are confusing and nit arsily
> explained by a simple e-mail. What you can do best is first study the EPR
> parodox, understand that this implies problems with locality or causality,
> and then reconsider. Space-time is not just a simple stage on which the
> actors play, actors snd stage sometimes (experimentally proven) be
> intertwined! It is not hoe people like to think, or even i like to think,
> but it is a fact you simply have to take on board.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Best, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>
> Op 23 feb. 2015 om 15:09 heeft "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>  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
> <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> 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: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
> <http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html>. 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.
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
>
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
>
> 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 <mules333 at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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 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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20150224/062968af/attachment-0001.htm>