[General] why doesn't the light get out?

Mon Feb 23 21:37:17 PST 2015

Dear John D.,

You have posed some interesting ideas/models/scenarios.

let us try a few answers.

   1. The light emitted from inside a black hole is like going from a high
   refractive index to a lower one as you move out. As the mass of the
   potential well, or the depth of emission within a black hole, increases the
   critical angle for total internal reflection decreases and, from the center
   of a black hole, the light will reflect (like a wave from a beach) even
   when aimed straight out.
   2. The black hole mass increases by 511 keV/c^2 when an electron, or a
   photon of that energy, falls into it. A photon is blue-shifted (frequency &
   energy increase) when going into a black hole (its wavelength decreases in
   another view). Frequency changes because time changes as you descend into
   the black hole.
   3. Your description of gaining mass energy as you 'ascend' is the proper
   description of the increase of mass & charge during the creation of the
   electron-positron pair from a photon (a white hole?).

Food for much discussion.

Andrew
_______________________________,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:58 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:

>   John:
>
> Imagine we're in gravity-free space. I shine a laser, and you measure the
> frequency. Then you accelerate away along the line of the laser and measure
> the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But that light
> didn't change one jot. Instead, *you* changed, along with your measuring
> equipment. Now let's repeat for the vertical light beam. You measure the
> frequency at ground level, then you ascend to some great height and measure
> the frequency again. Light is experimentally redshifted. But *that light
> didn't change one jot. *Instead, *you *changed, along with your measuring
> equipment.
>
> That isn't what's taught, but think about this: if you send a 511keV
> photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511kev/c². Not
> by any other amount. The descending photon *doesn't* gain any energy.
> Instead, when you descend, you lose it, remember the mass deficit. And when
> you ascend, you gain it. If I lift you up, I do work on you. I add energy
> to you. So you measure the photon to be redshifted even though it isn't.
>
>
> *At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black
> hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists
> portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture,
> more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height
> (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular
> "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for
> radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a
> black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to
> having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please.*
> Well spotted. Here's a clue as to why I think that light doesn't get out:
>
> [image: EinsteinSpeedofLight]
>
> Regards
> John
>
>
>  *From:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 1:49 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] the edge of the universe
>
>  Hi John (D),
>
> What happens depends on the theoretical mantle one chooses to wear for the
> argument. I think all our wordy speculations (we call them theories) are
> not really worth anything when compared to experiment. Faraday called all
> theory "speculation" and he was right.
>
> John D your scenario is lacking in the consideration of one crucial
> experimental fact. Light is, experimentally, red-shifted as it works
> against the action of, even a modest, a gravitational potential. This is
> the argument in Martin's paper "light is heavy", amongst other places, but
> is easy to measure just by looking at light from and to space.
>
> This is not my field but ,as Martin and I would day, unhindered by any
> knowledge (ongehindered door enige kennis) I will have a go at elucidating
> this from several different perspectives ..
>
> As I see it, the light does not "slow down" but it does redshift, getting
> redder and redder as it goes up. That wonderful magic wand of yours (can I
> have one?) simply makes the photons redshift faster.
>
> Black hole-ness then occurs when the photon redshifts all the way down to
> zero frequency. At this point it has used up all its initial (positive)
> energy in trying to get out of the (negative gravitational potential energy
> of the ) black hole.
>
> At this point I have a problem with most other peoples view of a black
> hole (including, as far as I understand it, some famous scientists
> portrayed in Oscar winning films) in that , manifestly in this picture,
> more energetic (blue) light will reach this limit at a different height
> (and for different gravitational potentials). So there is no particular
> "event horizon". In this picture, something which is a "black hole" for
> radio is not so for a visible photon. This is a semi-classical picture of a
> black hole. It is the way I look at it at the moment, but am very open to
> having my mind changed by a convincing argument to the contrary. Please.
>
> The standard Schwartzchild theories, it seems to me, envisage a
> hypothetical massive lightspeed particle not observed in Nature. I could be
> wrong here though- that is just what the maths of the argument looks like
> to me. The limit is calculated in classical Newtonian gravity- look it up!.
> I would have thought that this ought to be taken as being a serious
> problem but it seems not be thought so in some quarters. There seems to a
> lot of talk, or talk about talk, but few seem to look at the actual
> calculations, and properly consider what they really mean and what the
> basis of the whole argument really is. I must admit to finding this truly
> astonishing. It does not seem to me to fit properly with the calibre of
> some of the people propounding the arguments.
>
> If one goes to general relativity, which should be better, one runs into
> further serious problems. Amongst other things if one does the maths
> correctly there is really no such thing as a black hole (see Crothers ...
> though he has had a lot of trouble getting his stuff published his maths
> looks right to me). We should talk to this guy! The best accepted work
> seems (to me) to mix Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas up at different points
> in the argument. I would really like to see this discussion go to proper
> level.
>
> Quantum gravity has the problem that the gravitons responsible for the
> interaction should also travel at lightspeed, so if light cannot get out
> neither should they.
>
> Coming back to the universe, the (redshift) limit for the universe as a
> whole is just the same formula as for the (standard as-above) black hole
> boundary. Martin calculated this a long time ago and it puzzled us for a
> while, until we realised that that is just about what is observed. The
> "edge" of the universe is just the point where the (Hubble constant
> redshifted) energy of the light, or any massive light-speed particle,
> reaching us just goes to zero.
>
> Ok, that is quite enough pontificating on my part because one of us, Viv
> Robinson, knows much more about this than I do. He has written a brilliant
> paper on it. In doing so he has had to fight much obfuscating nonsense
> widespread in the media (both in "common knowledge, on the internet, in
> science fiction, and even in much of the peer-reviewed press -not to
> mention in such authoratitive sources as hollywood!).  One of his ideas is
> (correct me if I am simplifying this Viv), no matter where light starts
> from - in an infinite uniform universe it still has to negotiate a
> gravitational potential which it must climb out of. For what it is worth I
> think this is fundamentally correct. It is worth noting that, despite the
> intrinsic value of his ideas, he has had loads of trouble getting this
> published as well ... but it is out (thank goodness). This is a task quite
> as hard as Andrew's from his perspective. I think this problem has been
> experienced by several of us- I have submitted a dozen papers in the last
> few years, none of which have managed to get into the peer-reviewed press.
> Others of us have been more successful in getting controversial stuff seen.
> I'm thinking of Richard and Chandra. I'm hoping to learn from you guys!
>
> On this note - as well as the general email discussion forum-is it perhaps
> worth setting up a (more or less secure) server on which we can share, and
> comment on, some of the pre-prints we have all been writing? These are
> likely to contain much more of substance that the general discourse we can
> contribute in an email.
>
> Regards, John W.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John
> Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 11:33 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] the edge of the universe
>
>   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 <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *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
> <http://bogpaper.com/science-sundays-with-john-duffield-edge-of-the-universe/>.
> WMAP says the universe is flat, Planck has found no evidence of any
> curvature or any toroidal topology <http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5086> , 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 <http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/24/universe.wide/>.
> 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 <chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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
> <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.
>
>
>
> [image: toroidalphotonsmall]
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: trefoil]
>
>
>
> 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 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>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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/20150224/43272e7f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EinsteinSpeedofLight[3].jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150224/43272e7f/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150224/43272e7f/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150224/43272e7f/attachment-0003.png>