[General] Black holes
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 06:19:58 PST 2015
Hi John W.
The "harmony of phases" issue seems relatively simple doesn't it?
Frequency increases because energy has increased. With an increase in energy
the "binding forces" are likewise increased, radius is smaller, frequency is
higher. Ok some details missing there but understood.
Time slows because the average reaction distance (photon exchange distance)
for the traveler has become longer. The vector sum of the velocity and a
distance vector perpendicular to velocity. So that due to velocity it takes
more time for the particles to react with each other. Lots of stuff missing
there, but this is a very basic approximation.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Dear all,
I think this discussion illustrates why why people have trouble with
physics. They just cannot seem to agree on basic things such as what time,
space and velocity really are. Tut-tut!
Now this is a very interesting discussion. Which I do not have time (or
space) to go into (properly) at the moment. Both the standpoint that John
and that Martin is taking, has merit. But I think this is exactly what I
mean by saying that we, as a group, have to get precise about our thinking.
My personal opinion is that I think you are quite wrong though, John - but
for pretty much exactly the right reasons. Here is why...
I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what
clocks measure (what else would one do?). Then the (correct, but partial),
argument that you are making about what everyone else believes and why it is
wrong breaks down. You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock
reference - and that is not what relativity is about. You are ascribing
changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the clock. One can do
this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in thinking - as we
observe here. I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well
(this is what Martin and I mean by the ruler-clock (rock) module. The
difference between frequency and time needs also to be looked at.
Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational
potential - with respect to clocks at a higher potential. This happens as
all the little oscillators inside them wind down. Also clocks wind up (or
down) as one accellerates or decelerates. This is , I think, why the
"postulate of equivalence" holds. Equivalently, light reduces its frequency
(in step) as one goes up, to overcome the work done against gravity. This
is the same fallacy (in my view where it is the rulers and the clocks and
not the velocity that change) as the example you used about machines being
taken up a hill but light not having changed. Yes it is true that the
machines have changed .. but so has the light (in exactly the same way -
just as you say) -otherwise one would, indeed, measure a different velocity.
I suppose I ought to write a paper on this entitled something like "on the
reason for the postulate of equivalence". Bit short of time at the mo - any
takers on a co-authorship?
Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work. The work done goes into
winding all the little oscillators inside your body up (where else could it
go - what else have you got?). Now if I use an absolute standard clock at
some level of gravitational potential as "the" absolute clock, then clocks
lower go slower and as you go higher higher go faster -indeed. However this
is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of light says or
means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in vacuo, is a
constant. I'm not talking about what we think, or make up, or argue or
theorise. I'm talking about what we as humans have MEASURED. Experiment.
Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space. Let s make a further
postulate - that rulers are what measure space. Reasonable starting point I
hope. That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN
THAT FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the
speed of light is then a constant -in vacuo. I beleive (but am willing to be
contradicted if one has a counter-example) that that is the current status
of all of experiment. Am I wrong? You guys are (some of the) the
optics/photonics experts (not me). You should know!
Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is
not motion, space is not motion.Motion is motion. (anyone else read "and yet
it moves"). Motion is space divided by time. Ok? Take distance (s) and time
(t) and velocity (v). Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt?
A little bit of space divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light,
in vacuo, anywhere, any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets
call it c. The speed of light.
Now this may seem as though I am saying that you are wrong (John D). No! You
are so right! the arguments you make are good ... it is just what you
ascribe to what is confusing! Something is, indeed, changing. Something is,
indeed, missing. But just what that change or missing thing is depends on
how we choose to split up our thinking. What we choose to be primary, and
what do we choose to be derived. Do we take space as primary? Do we take the
constancy of the speed of light as primary? Is something else primary? Is
anything missing. If something is missing what is it. Can we even know, in
principle, if anything is still missing even if we find some missing bits?
Bad news. No.
However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other
people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have
discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another,
(quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases. This
has to do with rulers and clocks and frequency and time and relativity and
quantum mechanics and (one of the) papers I'm going to present in August.
Briefly -relativistically the clocks slow down as the frequency goes up.
Think about it. How can they do both? They do do both, but how?
This relates to a (good but again missing something argument Richard made in
one of his contributions to this discussion( where he spoke along the lines
of they must either do this or do that and I thought .. no they must exactly
do both!).
Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As
someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and
mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority.
I think I have read a good fraction (if not most) of what he wrote - and he
was just like us guys. He kept trying different things, thinking from
another end, contradicting his earlier ways of thinking. He would have been
the first to agree that just because he said something it wasn't necessarily
right! WE need to keep thinking - and not just relying on what other people
have said - no matter how clever. The quote from Einstein is correct - but
both he (and you) can choose whether you see it as a change in velocity or a
change in speed or a change in the sizes of the rulers and clocks of space
time. Same thing. Different meaning for the words though. I think he perhaps
did mean velocity (and not speed) when he said it though (though I would
need to look at the context). In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves
(changing velocity) but the speed remains that of the speed of light
everywhere (c), for example.
Sorry I am going to have to bail again ... Labs ....
Cheers, John.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Martin:
With respect, I must challenge you on the speed of light, because it is of
crucial importance. Yes, it is generally taught that the speed of light is
constant, but it's a tautology <http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507> , a myth,
and it contradicts Einstein
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22s
peed%20of%20light%22> , and Irwin Shapiro
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay> , and others. See for example
this
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_ligh
t.html> Baez page where Don Koks says this:
Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the
English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general
theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of
the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since
velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of
light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in
the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity.
A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed]
of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is
precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers.
Or see Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html> and note this:
"In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive
object is responsible for the deflection of the light". Light doesn't curve
because spacetime is curved. That confuses cause and effect. Einstein never
said that. It curves because the speed of light varies with position
<https://bogpaper.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/science-sundays-with-john-duffiel
d-speed-of-light/> . It curves like sonar waves curve
<http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/SNR_PROP/snr_prop.htm> .
Moreover the myth contradicts the patent blatant scientific evidence. You'll
be aware that the NIST optical clock
<http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/scientist/transcripts/wineland.html>
goes slower when its lower. The same is true for the idealized
parallel-mirror light clock used extensively in relativity
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilatio
n_due_to_relative_velocity> . The lower clock goes slower. And there is no
actual time passing or flowing anywhere. Now look at the two light pulses in
the picture below. Are they going at the same speed?
The answer is no. The lower pulse goes slower. But you would not know if you
were there, because you go slower too, because you are made of light.
Regards
John D
From: Mark, Martin van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Chip, if John is confusing you, don't worry. It is a mixture of half
arguments interesting points of vieuw and flaws. (Sorry John, forget about
Major Tom, let him crash) Too many to debunk here, it is like explaining 10
Perpetuum mobiles at once, but I will say something about the most important
one.
The speed of light, for example. It is always c. space may be denser close
to a large mass, but you would not know if you are there. If light seems
slower, one way or another, you are comparing to a geometry that does not
apply. If it comes later (notice the subtlety here please) it may have
travelled through dense space, like a block of glass or a gravitational
field. Now things change a bit when we start moving with respect to
inhomogeneities like this. That's for later.
Regards, Martin
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: dinsdag 24 februari 2015 15:48
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Chip:
It gets even more interesting than that. See an old version of the Wikipedia
Firewall article
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firewall_(physics)&oldid=58730992
1> . See the mention of Winterberg? That's Friedwardt Winterberg. You know
how Einstein said light curves because the speed of light is spatially
variable
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22s
peed%20of%20light%22> , and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds
internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy?
Well, guess what? It can't keep doing this forever. There comes a point when
the electron's falling speed would be greater than the local coordinate
speed of light. And the electron is made out of light. It can't go faster
than light, because it is light. But falling bodies keep on accelerating,
because the speed of light is spatially variable. So something's got to
give. And there's only one thing that can give. The electron. See Friedwardt
Winterberg's paper attached. It's about gamma ray bursters. If you fell into
a black hole, you'd never make it to the event horizon. IMHO all the stuff
you hear about the elephant being in two places at once
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225751.200-the-elephant-and-the-eve
nt-horizon.html> is a load of old cobblers. And as for the information
paradox and the AMPS firewall and Hawking radiation, I couldn't possibly
comment.
Regards
John
From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:57 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Hi John D
Very interesting thought about gravity not existing in any space where light
cannot be slowed.
Regarding. "The reason light doesn't get out of the black hole isn't because
it's redshifted to oblivion. But because it's stopped."
It seems redshifted to oblivion and stopped, are the same thing. (With one
slight exception, the energy of the photon remains, so perhaps oblivion is
not the correct word.)
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:40 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Martin/John/All:
This thing about space falling inward is called the waterfall analogy
<http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html> . Spit. It is
popscience cargo-cult garbage that bears no relation to Einstein's general
relativity or hard scientific evidence. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in
the stress-energy-momentum tensor
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor> ? A
gravitational field is akin to an "energy-pressure gradient in space" that
alters the motion of light and matter through space. But it does not make
space move inwards. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world. The sky is
not falling in. Like Einstein said, light curves because the speed of light
is spatially variable. And see the attached, where you can read Irwin
Shapiro saying the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the
gravitational potential. Hence optical clocks go slower when they're lower.
John: I've talked to Crothers, it was not productive. Particularly since I'm
happy that black holes exist. There is something very small, very black, and
very very massive in the centre of our galaxy:
But see The Formation and Growth of Black Holes
<http://mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm> where Kevin Brown refers to the
frozen-star interpretation. He doesn't like it, but I think it's correct. At
the event horizon, the "coordinate" speed of light is zero. The reason light
doesn't get out of the black hole isn't because it's redshifted to oblivion.
But because it's stopped. And it can't go slower than stopped. And since
gravity is only there when the speed of light is spatially variable, there's
no more gravity. And no more collapse. And no black hole singularity.
Martin: in our universe light isn't stopped. But maybe 13.8 billion years
ago, it was. Note that if the early universe was a "frozen star" universe,
inflation is somewhat superfluous. By the way, I thought this
<http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/12/01/physicist-paul-s
teinhardt-slams-inflation-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/> was a good
read. And the gravastar <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar> catches my
eye because of the void in the fabric of space and time. Maybe 13.8 billion
years ago, the whole universe was like that.
Regards
John D
From: Mark, Martin van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:52 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] the edge of the universe
Dear John,
That is a fair question, I am a bit behind reading al the responses from
people and think John has said something about it in the mean time.
In any case I will come back to this later. There is more about blackholes
that is not understood at al..
Erik Verlinde was talking about SPACE falling (not tables, light or grand
pianos) into the hole inside the horizon! He may have made a slip of the
tongue, and it would certainly imply that it would be a lot harder to get
out.
I will first think some more. And look a few things up.
Note that in Newtonian gravitation, a blackhole's event horizon is that
position from where you cannot escape to infinity. A little deeper in the
hole you can still get out, but you must seriously hope for some Morons (or
what are these dumb creatures called again? Ah Klingon!) to fly by and toss
you a line.
Must look up the general relativity event horizon.
Martin
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: maandag 23 februari 2015 12:34
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 <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<mailto: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.natureoflighta
ndparticles.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 <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:43 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<mailto: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] 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:general-bounces+chipakins
<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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 johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150225/6ce120d7/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 27799 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150225/6ce120d7/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6271 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150225/6ce120d7/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 676788 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150225/6ce120d7/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- 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/20150225/6ce120d7/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/20150225/6ce120d7/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the General
mailing list