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

Tue Feb 24 06:26:22 PST 2015

Andrew:

1. If you shine a light straight at a block of glass, it goes straight through. If you were inside the glass shining your light, it would shine straight out. There is no total internal reflection. Here’s Professor Tom Moore’s reply to the question:

As the planet's mass approaches the black hole limit, the signal emitted from the surface will seem to move more and more slowly away from the surface (and will also be seen to be increasingly red-shifted as observed from infinity). When the surface of the planet coincides with the black hole's event horizon, the signal will stop moving outward from the surface (and the redshift observed at infinity will go to infinity). So light no longer escapes".

2. Frequency changes because time changes as you descend into the black hole, but how do you define time? Let’s start with the second. It’s defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In essence you sit there counting 9192631770 microwaves going past you, then you jump up and say that’s a second. When the light goes slower the second is bigger. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 where Magueijo and Moffat talked about the tautology. We define the second and the metre using the local motion of light, then use them to measure the local motion of light, and it always comes out as 299,792,458 m/s. Duh! 

3. When you lift an electron you do work on it. You add energy to it. You increase its mass. Because it’s a photon going round and round, and at the higher altitude it’s going round faster. Draw it as light going round a square path to understand what happens when you drop it. Light curves downwards because “the speed of light is spatially variable”. So the horizontals curve down and the electron falls down. Note that only the horizontals are curved, which is why matter is deflected half as much as light. And that the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy.    

, 

See Albrecht Geise describing it here: http://ag-physics.org/gravity/. I don’t quite agree with everything he says, but it’s the same elephant. 

Regards
John  

From: Andrew Meulenberg 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:37 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Andrew Meulenberg 
Subject: Re: [General] why doesn't the light get out?

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:

  Regards
  John

  From: John Williamson 
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:49 PM
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
  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 
  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>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  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>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20150224/9e1ce8da/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150224/9e1ce8da/attachment-0002.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150224/9e1ce8da/attachment-0003.jpeg>
-------------- 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/20150224/9e1ce8da/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/20150224/9e1ce8da/attachment-0003.png>