[General] The New Aether

Thu Jul 16 17:09:30 PDT 2015

Chip: My answers are in blue within the body of your email below.
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:52 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

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?
-------------------------------------
CTF is stationary; the inertial reference frame of the universe! Various spatially extent oscillations are its local temporal gradients of different kinds. Conceptually, it would be like oscillating the current in a solenoid and have oscillating magnetic field. But nothing is physically moving; there are only spatial magnetic gradients that are changing temporally. Existence of particles as self-looped resonant oscillations make particles as "ethereal", non-substantial. This is why the universe is so elusive. This is why current particle physicists will not concede during their life time! Planck was so deeply annoyed that he once commented that you will have to wait out the death of the prevalent opinion holders. He never liked "indivisible photon"; but maintained his politeness till his own death!
------------------------------------
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.
______________________
Spin quantization to me is purely for "particles", self-looped oscillations; which directly implies "spin" of the field gradient. Resonance creates stability; spin quantization is an outcome of that. Not, being a theoretician; I have not yet time to venture into these modeling.
_______________________

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.
-----------------------------------------
Forces to me are emergent secondary filed gradient-properties of the CTF enforced by the self-looped oscillations of the CTF, not by Boson exchange! So particles can "fall" or get "pushed out" by these secondary gradients. This is very much like  Einstein's "curvature of spaces" as gravitational force. There are no gravitons.
--------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
The energy of the universe is not some separate stuff. The very existence of the CTF is the energy in the form of complex tension. A guitar string under mechanical tension, holds tension energy that allows us to create oscillation (music or noise) through perturbations!
----------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------
Of course, I would not dare to say that I understand the true nature of light. But, I would not shy away from claiming that I understand better than what is available in the published text books. My minimum contribution is understanding the universality that waves in the linear domain do not interact to re-organize their energies in the absence of resonate detectors. The deeper implication of this has been missed for three hundred years; even though Huygens had said this in his book in late sixteen hundreds.
-----------------------------------------------------

Your work is quite inspiring and enlightening.
--------------------------------------
Many many thanks for the complements! I am ambitious. I am pushing for new paradigm shift in physics thinking. It is time for another major shift for all the working theories. All the foundational postulates need to re-assessed starting from Newton's laws. We now know that Newton's "mass" as some "substance" does not exist! Everything is energy of motion. Everything is oscillation or dance ("Lila" in Sanskrit) of "ethereal" fields, like magnetic field, or electric field, or gravitational field, permeating all space.
-------------------------------------------------

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/

2.      http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=23817#.VafJHPnivHA

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

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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/20150717/c1798a05/attachment.htm>