[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Wed Jun 17 09:11:59 PDT 2015

John D.

I think that you are not being precise enough when you say that the speed of
light is not constant.  There are two definitions for ways of measuring the
speed of light.  In one of them the speed of light is constant and in the
other the speed of light is not constant.  If the speed of light is measured
locally (using a local clock and ruler), then the speed of light is always
constant.  If you adopt a single clock to measure the speed of light in
different gravitational potentials, then the speed of light varies.  

Even your interpretation of the amount that it varies depends on one other
choice.  This point will be illustrated with an example.  When light is bent
by passing near a large mass such as the sun, the angle is twice what might
be expected from the classical model of the light feeling gravitational
acceleration and “falling” as it passed the massive body.  The factor of 2
can be explained two different ways. I will not go into the details here
because they are covered in chapters 2 and 3 of my book.  However, the key
difference between these two choices lies in the handling of the
gravitational effect on volume.  The Shapiro experiment showed that the sun
has enlarged the volume of the surrounding space beyond what would be
expected from Euclidian geometry.  If the photon passing through this volume
is given credit for having traveled a greater distance, then the effect on
the radial coordinate speed of light is different than if this effect on
space is ignored and all the bending is attributed to a slowing in the
coordinate speed of light.  

On another point, I am not sure that I understood your comment about the
analogy to the sheer wave speed of sound.  Sound wave analogies break down
when you get into sheer waves.  Spacetime does not need to be a rigid medium
like a solid in order to be able to support transverse waves.  When we are
dealing with waves propagating at the speed of light, effects occur which
are not analogous to waves propagating at far less than the speed of light.
The fact that gravitational waves are transverse waves without spacetime
being a rigid body is one of these differences.  

John M.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:43 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

John M:

Take care with constants. In mechanics a shear wave travels at a velocity
determined by the stiffness and density of the medium:  

         v = √(G/ρ) 

The G here is the shear modulus of elasticity, the ρ is the density. The
equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer, and
slower if the density increases. You can’t directly apply the concept of
density to space, but in electrodynamics the velocity equation is remarkably
similar: 

         c = √(1/ε0μ0) 

People are taught that the speed of light is constant, but it simply isn’t
true. See the second paragraph here
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22s
peed%20of%20light%22> . If the speed of light was constant in the room you’
re in, optical clocks wouldn’t go slower when they’re lower, and your
pencil wouldn’t fall down. 

Regards

John D

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: 17 June 2015 02:07
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Hello John W. and All,

In your response you said,

Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi
epsilon zero)  ... thus eliminating (in principle)  yet another natural
constant altogether: 

This is very interesting since this implies an alternative to my charge
conversion constant η. 

η ≡ (G/4πεoc4)1/2 = Lp /qp ≈ 8.61 x 10-18 m/C

(1/4πεo)(1/2) = c4/G

G = 4πεoc4η2

I admit that I think that my charge conversion constant is perfect.
Therefore, I would like to make a comparison to your derivation that
eliminates the constant 1/4πεo.

John M.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Philipp Steinmann
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Dear John M and everyone,

Indeed it is useful to think about the relationship between things. I also
agree with John M that gravity and electromagnetism are different aspects of
the same thing. As I have said before,  Martin and I developed a toy theory
of these a decade or two ago which gave the right numbers (with zero extra
background mass/energy) but has not developed further than a a few pages in
our "appendix" due to lack of time or energy due to the demands of our day
jobs. 

At the end of the day, replacing one universal constant with another,
related one is zero net progress.  In Martin and my 1997 paper we calculated
the charge in terms of Planck's constant (or vice versa).   This is one
fundamental constant less. The basic idea was that the oscillating electric
field of the photon became uni-directional due to the folding of the photon
path into a double-loop.

The hope with the new theory, which incorporates the experimentally observed
properties of the four-dimensions of space and time from the outset, is that
one can use it to calculate BOTH from first principles. I have tried this
within the framework of an emission/absorption model in the new classical
field theory - and obtained an answer - but it is currently a couple orders
of magnitude out.  This is one of the areas I hope to get some help from
with within the group - especially those with specialist knowledge of Atomic
physics - which is where I think the answer lies. Martin and I are anyway
onto this - and he is already brushing up on his understanding of Atomic
physics (amongst one or two other things!) to help to try to get a handle on
this.

Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi
epsilon zero)  ... thus eliminating (in principle)  yet another natural
constant altogether: one of the essential assumptions in deriving this was
precisely that there was zero net energy in the vacuum fluctuations. As is
observed.

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Hello John W and Everyone, 

In looking over one of the papers sent by John W. I was struck by the
following sentences:

This comes to one of the central, outstanding mysteries of physics. What is
the underlying nature of quantized charge?

It has occurred to me that I can make a contribution to answering this
question.  Attached is several pages from chapter 9 of the revised version
of my book.  In this I propose a “charge conversion constant” and show the
implications of this towards explaining the properties of a photon. 

I would appreciate hearing if anyone can find a single case where using the
charge conversion constant gives an unreasonable answer.  Also, the paper
implies that the spacetime field is the new aether.  Can you find any
reasons why this is not correct?

John  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150617/d758964f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 268786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150617/d758964f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150617/d758964f/attachment-0001.png>