[General] The New Aether

Tue Jul 28 01:38:06 PDT 2015

Chip Vivand All:

I agree with John that QED doesn't have much to do with it. Feynman couldn't
even explain a magnet. But even though I'm a relativity  guy, I don't think
that helps either. Instead I think it's best to go way back, and take a tip
from gravitomagnetism here. Check out this NASA article
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ where
Tony Philips talks about vortices, just like Maxwell did
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force> , and says
"space is twisted".  Then think of an electromagnetic field as something
similar. Combine the radial electric field lines with concentric magnetic
field lines for electromagnetic field lines like this:

There's a torus in the middle
<http://members.optushome.com.au/walshjj/toroid2.jpg>  causing what is in
essence frame-dragging, wherein the electromagnetic field is "twisted
space". Or you might call it a "twist field". Now imagine you were heading
into it. For some strange reason this works best if you hold out your arms
like you're a kid playing planes. What happens if you head into it? You
turn.  If you have relative motion with respect to this twist field, and you
didn't know it, you would call it a turn field.  That's what a magnetic
field is. A turn field. We don't talk of rot and rotor for nothing,
electrons don't go round and round for nothing, see this picture
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Electron_beam_in_a_magn
etic_field.jpg> . The Lorentz force is merely the combination of linear
"electric" force and rotational magnetic force that results when two (or
more) charged particles interacts. They move like cyclones and anticyclones.

The simplest magnet is the current-in-the-wire. There you have two opposite
sets of twist fields which cancel. However one set is moving, so there's a
net turn field: 

That's a magnetic field. Bend the wire into a solenoid to emulate a bar
magnet, then bend that again to make a horseshoe magnet. A magnet is a
magnet because all the electrons are moving the same way. In a solenoid they
go round in a circle of wire, in a bar magnet they go round domains, but
there's not much difference really.  

Regards

John Duffield

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 28 July 2015 03:01
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi Vivian and Michael

Thank you for your responses.  

The interesting thing to me is the fact that when you rotate the disk, there
is an electric potential generated across the disk, but when you rotate the
magnet there is no net electrical potential generated. Naively one would
expect the same results at any time the disk or magnet are rotated relative
to each other, but this is not the case. It is like the magnetic field is,
in a sense, "stationary" in space, regardless of whether the magnet is still
or rotating.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:28 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi Chip,

Magnetic lines of force don't exist. They are a convenient representation of
an observed magnetic effect such as the lines that iron filings form when
placed in a magnetic field. You can't corral them by getting a magnetised
wire to draw them in and so concentrate them. At least I couldn't when I was
tried the experiment many years ago. Quantum electrodynamics (QED)
specialists are more experience in magnetism than myself and maybe one of
them can give some more information. IMHO, the reason for the noise
generated when the magnet was rotated was because of the non uniform nature
of the magnetic's field. When the stator is rotated it is also moving
through a magnetic field. I am not aware of Einstein's relativity theories
have anything to say about magnetic fields. Over to QED experts. 

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 28/07/2015, at 1:46 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi All

A friend forwarded this video regarding magnetic fields.

It is quite interesting.

 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

I am interested in hearing your views and thoughts on this phenomenon.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org <mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:40 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Thank you, John, W, Vivian R. and John M.

As a part of the facilitating system, I am pleased to see that the overall
contents of the discussion are conducive to collective learning.  Collective
learning is at the core of the  unusually successful evolution of the human
neural network compared to all other species. The best part of the
collective learning is that I do not need to spend all my life to find out
that my logically self-consistent and elegant theory is based upon
postulates that are insufficiently connected with the ongoing natural
processes. We need system engineering thinking in all human endeavors; we
need collective and iterative thinking.

Thanks to all of you that the forum is maintaining its serious enquiry of
nature; rather than telling nature how she ought to behave!

Chandra.

PS: I owe a separate personal reply to John M.; will do so in a couple of
days.

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 John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:45 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Hi John M,

I think you are confusing proof and disproof. There tends to a be a popular
mis-conception that an experiment can "prove" a theory. Not so, an
experiment may be consistent or inconsistent with a theory - no more. This
means that a well-constructed experiment may, in a sense, disprove a theory,
but not prove it. If an experiment is inconsistent with a theory - within
the realm of validity of that theory - then that theory should, in the
proper operation of the scientific method, be either modified or discarded.

Now you have raised some questions below, not of any of our models, but of
science as it stands. Though this has little or nothing to do with the
subject of the upcoming conference, I am going to try to help you by
answering those questions, within the context of science-as-it-stands. I'm
not then going to enter into further discussion to defend those theories for
you - this is not my job and I have neither the time nor the energy for it.
If you want to go deeper into this you can read the papers on it by Feynmann
and others, or look into one of the many textbooks on QED. This is a one
off. I will answer in blue.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com
<mailto:john at macken.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:52 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] The New Aether

Vivian and All.

I have been away and was not able to answer Vivian's objections contained in
her July 17 post dealing with my paper titled "Energetic Spacetime: the New
Aether".  On several of her points she demanded that I had to be able to
show the experimental proof in order for a point to be valid.

This is not so. Viv was talking about a discrepancy with experiment.

  I must admit that as I read this comment I wondered why this demand was
being directed at me.  Everyone in this group including Vivian and Chandra
has offered theoretical models which lack experimental proof.

This mis-states the position of others.

In fact, most progress in physics happens when a theoretical prediction is
made which initially lacks experimental proof.

Not so. It is discrepancy with the existing body of knowledge that usually
drives folk to question. The initial driving discrepancy may not, indeed,
correspond with what are later seen as "successes" of a model.

The experimental proof then follows as the idea matures. 

No theory is ever "proven" by any one experiment.

For example, general relativity was purely theoretical until the bending of
light by the sun's gravity was experimentally measured in 1919.  The
experiment would not have been performed without the theoretical prediction.

Oh yes it would. Photons would have been known to carry energy and momentum.
there would have been an argument like that in Martin's "light is heavy" and
someone would have looked at how these move in a gravitational field by now.

General relativity remains unproven. It is only the case that, to first
order, General relativity is consistent with the facts.

Another problem is that objections were registered without also addressing
the arguments I gave to support my conclusions.  The central point was that
there is no support for my contention that vacuum energy has energy density
in excess to 10-9J/m3. However, before addressing this point, I want to
discuss the competition to my model of particles and forces.  The
competition has the electrostatic force being transferred by virtual
photons.  There is absolutely no experimental proof that virtual photons
transfer the electrostatic force.  In fact, there are numerous reasons to
doubt this.

John, there is a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is
consistent with a vast range of experimental phenomena. Have you ever
studied it? I'm going to give some trite answers based on that theory - and
which I could have answered as a postgrad back in 1980. I will not come back
to defend them because I myself do not think QED is complete, but I have
better things to do than to regurgitate things you could read from a big
book. I recommend "Landau and Lifshitz - QED". Anyway, showing that someone
else has a problem - even if you had done that which you have not - does not
then prove that you are right.

For example: 1) How is attraction achieved?

As I have said before in many posts: virtual photons can carry negative
4-momentum squared.

2) How does an electric field achieve measurable energy density from
"virtual" photons?

You have a lot of them.

3) What exactly is a virtual photon? (size, wavelength, frequency, etc.)

Stupid question. Any size, any wavelength , any frequency. Even "real"
photons can do that.  A virtual photon is a theoretical construct in the
theory of QED. Read the book.

  4) How does a virtual photon locate a distant electron?

Good point. This is relatively hard. It is dealt with in QED by assigning a
probability to emit (based on the fine structure constant) and a probability
to absorb (ditto). The primary interaction matrix element then goes as
alpha- squared times some geometrical factors.  You need to understand as
well that, as the distant electron becomes more and more distant the
"virtual" photon becomes less and less virtual and more and more real. In
fact, even for a few tens of wavelengths, the exchange photon is 99.9999
percent "real". There are higher order effects for exotic kinds of
interactions (virtual photons!). These, if calculated - give pretty much
exactly the effects observed in experiment. 

To understand the deeper implied point better, however, you need to look
first at Carver Mead's keynote talk at last years SPIE conference. Then look
at Al Kracklauer's translation of Tetrode's paper (look on his website),
then read Wheeler and Feynmann's paper then try to understand how this can
still be consistent with causality (this is hard and may take you some time.
Think - energy.).

  I could go on, but you get the point. 

I could go on but you get the point.

Also, the competition says that the gravitational force is transferred by
either the geometry of curved spacetime or by virtual gravitons. Both of
these also have problems.  Curved spacetime is fine to explain a particle
following a geodesic, but there is a real force when two masses are
physically held apart.  Where does this force come from?

Easy: masses share the "bend". Many hands make light work. All that sort of
thing.

Curved spacetime does not explain the gravitational force. 

Oh yes it does. Do you think no-one would have noticed? Many others in the
group ... Viv, David, Reg, Al ... know much more about this than I do. It
would be good for you to talk to them at the conference.

In other words, there is no experimental proof that the geometry of
spacetime can generate a force corresponding to the gravitational force.
Also, gravitons have many of the same problems previously enumerated for
virtual photons.  There is no experimental proof of gravitons.

True - as far as I know. Unless someone in the wider group, more specialist
or widely-read than I knows better? David? Reg? Al? The fact that there is
no proof for someone else's theory has little, or no, bearing on your own
though. Also, while there is no experimental "proof" for gravitons there is
no experimental disproof either. No inconsistency with experiment then. Also
gravitons have absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming conference.

My explanation of both the electrostatic force and gravity is based on the
idea that vacuum energy is real.  The uncertainty principle implies that the
distance between points varies by ± Planck length (Lp) and perfect clocks in
flat spacetime can differ by ± Planck time (Tp).  This simple insight is the
basis for the wave-based energy density of spacetime.  This energy density
has been calculated and shown to be vastly different from the observable
energy density which averages10-9 J/m3. It is also the basis of everything
in the universe - all particles, fields and forces. No extra dimensions are
needed.  How come when people freely propose extra dimensions there is no
chorus demanding experimental proof?  However, when energetic spacetime is
assumed, then objections are heard even though there is numerous reasons to
believe that the vacuum has energy density.

I think the main reason for this is that energies and masses on this scale
are simply not observed. When people make up extra dimensions they do so
usually in an area where they ought not to be observed - being very small or
only manifesting at an absurdly large energy scale. You start in an area
where such energies and masses - if they are energies and masses - should by
easily observed by looking out of the window.

Unlike virtual messenger particles transferring forces, this wave-based
particle model has real predictions which were easy to prove correct.

This statement is simply not true. QED predicts, it is true, but it also
calculates. So far, with the possible exception of tiny discrepancies in the
anomalous magnetic moment of the muon w.r.t. that of the electron, its
calculations agree exactly with experiment. It calculates to many decimal
places. Experiment is still catching up with extending those decimal places
by further orders. Down at one part in a million or less. You have shouted a
lot about your model - but the only actual number I have seen calculated
from it -  the electron charge- is out by more than two orders of magnitude.

For example, the first set of predictions were that both the electrostatic
force and the gravitational force were the result of waves generated by
fundamental particles at the particle's Compton frequency.  When these
forces were expressed in the natural units of the particles, they would
reveal that gravity was a nonlinear effect that scaled with wave amplitude
squared and electrostatic effects scaled with wave amplitude to the first
power.  In other words, it should be possible to prove or disprove whether
this model was correct by doing either a calculation or an experiment which
tested this relationship.  In the paper Spacetime Based Foundation of
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity equations 15 to 23 show that these
predictions are correct.

I looked at this, but all you seem to have done, to me, is plugged in
Newton's force law - and a set of other well-known relations in your
equation 13, provided only that you also plug in a value of the electron
charge which is more than two orders of magnitude out. This is not, in my a
book, a prediction. Also, even after all of this, you seem to get no further
than Newton's law of gravitation.

  I have subsequently generated other equations showing the close
relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force.
This "foundation" paper was previously attached to my posts and is also
available at <http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf>
http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf

 <http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf> 

Both the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation have
been experimentally verified. 

To a first approximation. The Newton theory is modified, as you know in GR
and the Coulomb law breaks down at short distances (the running coupling
constant).

Therefore, showing how there equations are related by a square is the same
as doing an experiment.

Oh no it isn't.

The fact they are related by an inverse square shows only that both are
consistent, to first order, with being transmitted by a conserved fluid in
3D. No more and no less.

If you are looking for predictions which have not been experimentally
verified, I have those also.  In chapter 9 of my book I discuss an electric
field experiment  that should be possible but difficult. However, even then
I am able to show that it is possible to verify the accuracy of the
prediction with a thought experiment.  Suppose that it was possible to
increase the intensity of a laser beam to arbitrarily large powers.  If the
beam is focused to 1 wavelength in diameter, then the prediction is that it
should be possible to reach a condition where the properties of spacetime
would achieve 100% modulation of the vacuum energy density at the laser's
wavelength.  Spacetime should be incapable of transmitting more power than
the predicted 100% modulation level through the focused spot.  Imagine that
this experiment was performed by some advanced civilization.  At great
expense, they would discover that this prediction was correct.  The 100%
modulation level corresponds to the level that makes a black hole.  Once the
black hole forms, no further light could be transmitted through this volume
of spacetime - just as predicted.

Dear John, you seem quite safe to me for the time being with this
experiment. I tried doing the sums. Perhaps I made a mistake so correct me
if I am wrong. The poor old laser, if blue, would need a  power source
rather larger than that which could be obtained by annihilating the entire
universe with an equivalent antimatter universe- since the energy contained
in a 200nm (Half the wavelength of blue light) cube in your model, to get to
"the 100 percent modulation limit" far exceeds the energy of the energy of
the entire universe by many many orders of magnitude. This is going to take
some serious engineering. Do the sums.  Also, I would not recommend having a
go at this as annihilating the whole of our universe, just to "prove" a
theory would not necessarily be a good idea.

Finally, the "New Aether" paper contains a new calculation which gives the
"interactive" density ρi,

The fact you put "interactive" in quotes is telling.

energy density Ui, mass mi and energy ei encountered by a gravitational wave
with angular frequency ω and reduced wavelength λ.  Ignoring the numerical
constant k, these equations are very simple:

ρi = ω2/G

Ui = Fp/λ2

mi = Zs/ω

ei = Fpλ

These are all explained in the aether paper.  I know that none of these will
not be completely satisfying, but they are given because they imply that
different frequencies encounter different amount of energy density.  Only
Planck frequency encounters 10113 J/m3 energy density.

If interactive, these interactions are huge on a human scale. You should be
able to feel them by waving your hand. You do not.

If you have no need for a higher frequency than the Compton frequency of the
Higgs boson, then you need not concern yourself with energy density higher
than about 1046 J/m3.  This also happens to be the energy density of the
Higgs field from QED. 

The Higgs field is not in QED. It is an additional part of the "standard
model".  QED deals with just the interaction of light and (charged) matter.

John, a general comment. I have been putting a lot of effort and time into
this for your benefit and for the benefit of others in the group. I like
some of what you have done, and have been doing, and there is some serious
content in some aspects of your ideas. Attacking others, especially
physics-as-it-stands, is a waste of everyone's energy and talent. It is
beginning to piss me off. Please stick to either developing your own ideas,
or posting (preferably constructive) criticism of things that are actually
in the theme of this conference.

John M.

Regards, John W.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au
<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?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/20150728/314272a3/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150728/314272a3/attachment-0003.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150728/314272a3/attachment-0004.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 100571 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150728/314272a3/attachment-0005.jpeg>