[General] The New Aether

Thu Jul 16 10:51:43 PDT 2015

Hi Chandra

First, I want to say that I really respect the work and analysis you have
done regarding the phenomenon of light, the "CTF" and the makeup of
particles.  You and I have come to amazingly similar conclusions regarding
space, time, relativity, and the quantum nature we observe.

One item I am trying to fully comprehend, and solve, is the exact nature of
our measurement, and the full definition of the causes for the
experimentally observed "properties" of light which cause us to have the
concept of a "photon".

When I envision the CTF it consists of "nodes" and lines of force between
the nodes.  This allows me to more completely envision the properties of
space. How do you envision this field?

Another consideration I have been dealing with is the perceived spin of
photons.  While it is understandable that an object, with no spin angular
momentum, when it encounters and object which is spinning, will show an
angular momentum component in the reaction. And superimposed sinusoidal
plane waves can also cause a form of rotation due to phase shift. But what I
have been trying to fully understand is the clear definition of the nature
of spin quantization in the reaction of light with matter.

There are several additional considerations, and clues, which I want to more
completely explore.  The binding forces of particles (Poincare) for example,
may be interpreted as being resonances of the CTF, or they may be
interpreted as being properties of the reaction of energy with space
(properties of fields).  In practically all senses, these two
interpretations are actually just a different way of expressing the same
thing. But in either view, the presence of these forces means that the
properties of space, or the properties of the fields which propagate to make
light, obey certain rules, which go beyond Maxwell's treatment of the
phenomena.

What this means (to me) is that a full and concise definition of how energy
reacts with space, and therefore a full definition of the related properties
of the CTF, which will produce the results we see in experiment, will have
to deal with how and why spin and confinement occurs for fermions, and will
also disclose exactly what is going on in the propagation of light.

This may eventually lead us back to the same conclusions you have drawn
regarding the nature of light, but it is possible that it could also add a
bit more to the understanding of the nature of light and the properties of
space. As an aside, in my view, the "stuff" of Martin's paper is the
reaction of energy with space.

Your work is quite inspiring and enlightening.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Chip: You ask good and relevant questions!

To further throw a "curve ball" into the discussions and expose my
personally biased views about the space as a Complex Tension Field (CTF), I
want to iterate two points from my previous publications:

1.      Energy of the universe: 100% of the energy is held by the CTF. No
dark energy or dark matter are needed. There are no "matter" anyway! Only 4
to 5% of the tension field energy is manifest as radiation and particles.
Rest is the background supporting energy (tension). Everything manifest is
some kind of harmonic oscillation. The linear excitation generates EM wave
that propagates perpetually away from the site of excitation due to the
intrinsic property of any tension field. It derives from the fact that a
tension field cannot assimilate the external perturbation energy; so it
pushes it away perpetually to achieve its local state of equilibrium (the
root origin of the conservation of energy). Self-looped oscillations
(resonant for stability) are generated by non-linear excitations. Perpetual
self-looped "propagation" "fools" the CTF, as if it is pushing away the
external perturbation energy perpetually, just like the linear excitation
(EM wave). 

EM waves do not have spin or angular momentum. Interaction of multiple
polarized E-vectors with (axially symmetric) dipolar detectors, generate
various spin and angular momentum like responses in our detectors. Just like
the field quantization, we are imposing spin and angular momentum on
"photon" wave packets by detecting them with particles that have all sorts
of quantized properties, including spin and angular momentum. Yes, we do
"see" the world; unfortunately, only indirectly through detectors that are
always "wearing quantum goggles"! And we are believing 100% on these "biased
reporters" :)!! That is why truly free imagination to visualize the
ontological reality is so vital. The path is process visualization.
Invisible natural interaction processes are ontological. Evidences (of
"evidence based science") are always "colored" by the sensors' intrinsic
biases; which can never be overcome; except through logically
self-consistent iterative mapping of every possible interaction details
(Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology, IPM-E). 

2.      CTF as the inertial (stationary) reference frame: The "stuff' of the
universe is the stationary tension field. That is how nature accommodates
the same laws of physics in every galaxies. Spectrometry proves it. All
Doppler frequency shifts, - (a) permanent due to source velocity, and (b)
perceived due to detector velocity, are distinctly different phenomena,;
because CTF is stationary. CTF is only three dimensional! But it has a
variety of built-in tensions whose "appropriate perturbations" is making the
observable universe "tick"! The CTF is imperceptible to us directly because
we , ourselves are emergent complex assembly of various localized
self-looped oscillations. This is why the structure of the universe appear
so elusive; but it certainly is neither an illusion, nor  a Holographic
Projection of a hologram in the hand of some Creator :)!  

Sincerely,

Chandra.

My publications are available from:

1.       <http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/> http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

2.
<http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=23817#.VafJHPniv
HA>
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=23817#.VafJHPnivH
A 

3.       <http://bookzz.org/book/2344956/9dd03a>
http://bookzz.org/book/2344956/9dd03a

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:52 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi John M

Thank you for the paper.

I have a few questions:

You propose that the photon has quantized angular momentum, (as QM
suggests), so you feel the photon is inherently quantized, and has a center
of action which is located at its center of angular momentum?

You are using acoustic equations, which implies to me, that you feel that
light is a compression (longitudinal) wave instead of the Maxwellian
transverse wave.  Is this an accurate reflection of your view?

By the way, I agree that Compton Scattering does not prove the photon is a
particle.  If we treat the electron in its entirety as a set of circulating
fields, and use a photon model which seems realistic based on experiment.

When I try to conceive your illustrated electron model as a set of standing
waves, it kind of looks like an onion in a 3D view.  With waves moving
inward and waves moving outward.  But you also say that it is a vortex, with
angular momentum, which, in my mind, conjures up a notion of circulating
fields instead of the standing wave model. Circulating fields, when viewed
from any point external to the model, contain an advancing and a retreating
wave component as well. But it seems the two models are not compatible.
Thoughts?

Also, have you considered using a full set of wave equations, which go
beyond the longitudinal acoustic formulation and accommodates both
transverse and longitudinal waves?

Is there some compelling reason in your mind not to follow this avenue?

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 2:21 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] The New Aether

Hello All,

Attached is a copy of the paper that I submitted for the SPIE conference
except that it is in a 2 column format which I prefer for informal
circulation.  In particular, I would like to call your attention to section
2 of this paper starting on page 2 and finishing on page 4.  Many parts of
this paper were inspired by this group, but particularly this section 2. The
message has come through loud and clear that no one else believes that
spacetime can have the energy density that I propose.  This section
addresses that point.  I also like the quote contained in the first
paragraph.  I think that it sets the stage for the rest of the paper.  

I will be traveling for a few days, so I might not be able to answer
comments immediately.

John M.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150716/2671a2e7/attachment.htm>