[General] Black holes

John Williamson John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Thu Feb 26 00:20:02 PST 2015


Yes Chip you are right ...

For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock ) frequency goes down. The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz frame. It is properly (in the relativistic sense) coherent and resonant. If this is true, this is why it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies. The harmony can only be the case if the two frequencies vary as x and 1/x about the speed of light. They then have characteristic (phase - vp) velocities of xc and  (group- vg) velocities of c/x such that  vp times vg is c squared. This is true for Dirac quantum mechanics and there is an argument (due to Pauli i think) that it should be so for any relativistic theory.

What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally, in fact, infinite. The speed we measure is then just due to the inner harmony of the particles of which our rulers and clocks are made scaling space and time accordingly to force this harmony. Space and time themselves are a consequence of Harmony. If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then not notice. Infinite remains infinite. Clock rates would change and ruler lengths would change by just the factor of 2 needed to make no measurable difference at all. This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having trouble with before). I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any significant traction - outside of Martin of course. It is also the base idea behind the argument as to why the electron appears point-like in high energy physics interactions - even though it is far larger than this - in our 1997 paper. Again, there is no-one who has come back to me saying -- yes I get the point! You had anyone Martin?

I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to everyone in the year of light. IMHO.

I wanted to give a set of talks on this amongst other things (also the extension of classical electromagnetism you were interested in - which I argue leads to allowed solutions being quantised) this spring and just post them .. and I may still find time to do this. I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching such things as vectors and complex numbers to first year students. I don't really have the time to do anything properly at all.

Bad management here at the moment ... all the good guys are leaving and the workload keeps increasing for those few who remain.

Speaking of which ... gotta go .... urgent admin beckons. I have just been instructed by a secretary in the teaching office that the correct university procedure in disseminating the recent class-test results to the 400 or so first year students I have just tested on their knowledge of complex numbers and vectors is to email each one individually. I am also supposed, apparently, to fill in a paper form for each one as well explaining where they have done ok and where they need to make more effort. That should keep my busy for most of the rest of the week and the weekend and next week as well then.  What a good use of my time and what fun! First need to see if i can first find a list of their names as all I have is their numbers (we mark anonymously). I do not suppose they will feel feel very loved if they get an email saying something like ...

 Dear 201423163 - you have scored three out of twelve. This is not a very good mark for a four-option multiple choice test. You did ok on the vectors scoring 3/6, but badly on the complex numbers - getting nothing at all. You must try harder not to be quite so random next time.

I have a horrible feeling that it is not going to make them feel much better if they get much the same message on the A4 feedback form - even if I write it using a nice colour of ink.

Cheerio, John.

P.S. dont think I'm depressed - I'm a naturally very happy person!
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 2:19 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes

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.natureoflightandparticles.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=%22speed%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_light.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-duffield-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_dilation_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?

[parallel]

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.natureoflightandparticles.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=587309921>. 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=%22speed%20of%20light%22>, and I said the reducing speed of light bleeds internal kinetic out of the electron into macroscopic kinetic energy?
[electronfall]

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-event-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:

[blackhole_smaller_300x225]

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-steinhardt-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.natureoflightandparticles.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.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<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 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.

[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:


[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<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20150226/2c50e0d6/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 27799 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150226/2c50e0d6/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6271 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150226/2c50e0d6/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 676788 bytes
Desc: image003.gif
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150226/2c50e0d6/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20056 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150226/2c50e0d6/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28369 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150226/2c50e0d6/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the General mailing list