[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John M.,

I have not had time to read your work yet. However, your use of the
Gravitational Transformation (GT) is intriguing to me because I have done
the same thing for charge. I may be mistaken, but I think that your
gravitational transformation is a very small effect.relative to the charge
effect (e.g., a potential-dependent mass).

The value of range, r, needed to make significant alterations in the
'constants' (mass and charge) associated with fundamental particles is in
the femto-meter range for charge. Since at this range all particles become
charged (even neutrons have charge gradients in the sub-fm level), this
effect must be considered.

Where does it fall in the gravitational effects for elementary particles
(and for large masses)? Large masses have lower densities than elementary
particles and thus the GT would seem to be at very low levels even there.
Sorry that I do not have time right now to find and read the answers that
you already have probably provided in your work.

Andrew

Andrew

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:33 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> John D,
>
>
>
> I have written an entire chapter of a book on the changes that need to
> take place to achieve the covariance of the laws of physics when there is a
> change in the gravitational potential.  Here is one of my introductory
> paragraphs to this chapter:
>
>
>
> When the rate of time is different between two locations, but the laws of
> physics are the same, there must also be other changes in the units of
> physics to offset the difference in the rate of time.  For example,
> momentum scales proportional to *1/t*, force scales proportional to *1/*
> *t2*, power scales proportional to *1/**t3* and the fine structure
> constant is independent of time (*1/t0*). This is time raised to four
> different powers, yet the laws of physics are constant even with this
> difference in time dependence.  What additional changes are required to
> offset the change in the rate of time and preserve the laws of physics
> unchanged in different gravitational potentials?
>
> .
>
> Attached is a table of the gravitational effects on 30 different units and
> constants.  The points that you make on energy, charge, mass, etc. are all
> covered in this table. I think most of the symbols used in this table are
> obvious, but the table is page 3-9 in the book.  Pages near this give
> additional explanations.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Duffield
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:48 PM
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>
>
>
> *John M:*
>
>
>
> *The electron’s energy varies with gravitational potential. When you drop
> an electron some of its mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, which
> ends up getting dissipated. You then have a mass deficit, and the mass of a
> body is a measure of its energy content.  Energy is conserved.*
>
>
>
> *Charge is constant because it’s to do with winding. You wrap your wave
> round 720 degrees, not 719 degrees or 721 degrees. *
>
>
>
> *The fine structure constant is not constant, see NIST
> <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html>, but note that  this
> article talks about “effective” charge, which is misleading. Charge is
> conserved, e doesn’t change, **but **α = e²/2ε0hc does**.  *
>
>
>
> *A mass of 1kg at sea level is not the same as in free space because of
> the mass deficit. You might claim it is, but you’re effectively using a
> weighing scale where your 1kg mass is on one side, and a 1kg counterweight
> is on the other.    *
>
>
>
> *I’ve read the rest of your reply, and I’m afraid we must agree to differ.
> *
>
>
>
> *Regards*
>
> *John D*
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
> *Sent:* 17 June 2015 21:38
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>
>
>
> John D.
>
>
>
> I disagree with two of your points and I am not sure if we agree or
> disagree on the third point.  I will start with the constancy of the speed
> of light.  This is the one where I am not sure if we agree or disagree.  I
> claim that the speed of light measured locally is constant.  You agree but
> imply that this is a trivial point because both the meter and the second
> are defined by the speed of light.  If we were dealing with some abstract
> physics problem, I would agree.  However, in the real world there are many
> more components which all change in a way to preserve the covariance of the
> laws of physics.  For example, the all the following are the same when it
> is measured in different gravitational potentials using different rates of
> time:
>
> a)     The gravitational constant; b) the electron’s energy; c) the
> electron’s charge; d) the fine structure constant; e) a mass of 1 kg
>
>
>
> I could go on, but the point is that saying that the speed of light is
> constant when measured locally is not a trivial statement.  Think about
> using a physical meter stick and a stop watch to measure the speed of
> light.  All the atoms and forces in the meter stick and all the physical
> parts of the stop watch need to cooperate to give a constant speed of light
> when measured locally.
>
>
>
> I am a strong believer that the speed of light is not constant if a
> hypothetical “zero gravity observer” uses his/her clock to make the
> measurement.  I think that if we were discussing the speed of light in
> person, we would decide that we agreed, but were using different words.
>
>
>
> The next point will not go away so easily.  You said: “So matter is
> deflected half as much as light.”.  If I understand this statement, you
> are claiming that if a neutron or neutrino traveling at virtually the speed
> of light passes by the sun, the deflection would be different compared to
> the deflection of light.  This implies that inside a closed spaceship that
> you can do an experiment that determines if you are in zero gravity or in
> free fall in a gravitational field.  The difference should theoretically be
> detectable by measuring the difference in the location of where photons and
> neutrons strike a target when they are shot transverse to the suspected
> gravitational field.  This is not going to happen.  Again the extra volume
> created by gravity explains this.
>
>
>
> The next point of disagreement is contained in the following: “I’m afraid
> the Shapiro experiment has not showed that the sun has enlarged the volume
> of the surrounding space.” You then quite from a 1964 paper which
> proposed the experiment.  It is standard GR that in a gravitational field
> generated by a central mass you would get a different radial distance
> measured with a hypothetical tape measure compared to the radius calculated
> by measuring the circumference and dividing by 2π.  Therefore terms such as
> “circumferential radius” or “reduced radius” were coined to specify this
> difference.  Here are two sentences from my book.
>
>
>
> Suppose that it was possible to stretch a tape measure from the earth to
> the surface of the sun. The distance measured by the tape measure (proper
> distance) would be about 7.5 km greater than a distance obtained from an
> assumption of flat space and a Euclidian geometry calculation.
>
>
>
> The book goes on to calculate the non-Euclidian volume increase caused by
> the sun’s gravity within a spherical volume 1 AU in radius.  The answer
> obtained is 3.46 × 1026 m3 which is more than 300,000 times larger than
> the volume of the earth (earth’s volume is ≈ 1.08 × 1021 m3). On page
> 2-13 of the book there is another calculation that compares the decrease in
> the rate of time and the increase in the radial dimension produced by
> gravity.  Here is the conclusion.
>
>
>
> When we include the time dimension and calculate the effect of the gravity
> generated by a single mass on the surrounding spacetime, we obtain the
> answer that the *4* dimensional spacetime volume is independent of
> gravitational gamma Г. The radial dimension increases (Г = dLR/dR) and
> the temporal dimension decreases (Г = dt/dτ). These offset each other
> resulting in the *4* dimensional volume remaining constant.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *John Duffield
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:18 AM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>
>
>
> John M:
>
>
>
> With respect John, I’m being very precise.  We use the local motion of
> light to define our metre and our second. Then we use them to measure… the
> local motion of light. Duh! The apparent constancy is a tautology, and a
> popscience myth. Have a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 and check
> out this Baez article
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html>.
> The speed of light varies in the room you’re in. Light goes slower near the
> floor than near the ceiling, and because of this, light curves. That’s what
> Einstein said, repeatedly. Do your own research on this, see original
> material like this
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/360?highlightText=%22velocity%20of%20light%22>
> and note that the English translations sometimes use the word velocity when
> the correct word to use is speed. Einstein refers to the SR postulate,
> which was the constant speed of light, and says it doesn’t apply where
> gravity is concerned.
>
>
>
> The deflection of light is twice the Newtonian deflection of matter
> because of the wave nature of matter. Simplify the electron to light going
> round and round. Then simplify it further to light going round a square
> path. Then draw the light curving downwards, like this:
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01D0A8ED.86E3B590]
>
>
>
> Can you envisage how the electron falls down? The reducing speed of light
> bleeds internal kinetic energy out into external kinetic energy, and once
> you’ve radiated that away, you’re left with a mass deficit
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation>.
> Anyway, note that only the horizontals bend downwards? The verticals don’t.
> So only half the total light path is deflected. So matter is deflected half
> as much as light.
>
>
>
> I’m afraid the Shapiro experiment has not showed that the sun has enlarged
> the volume of the surrounding space. See Shapiro’s paper attached, and note
> this: *“**the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the
> gravitational potential along its path”*.  I’m afraid the people who tell
> you that the Sun has enlarged space, and that the speed of light is
> absolutely constant, are flatly contradicting Einstein, Shapiro, and the
> hard scientific evidence.
>
>
>
> Re the shear-wave analogy, I was referring to transverse waves in an
> elastic solid. See the shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum
> tensor? Shear stress. It’s there because space is something like a ghostly
> gin-clear elastic continuum. NB: electromagnetic waves are typically dipole
> transverse waves, whilst gravitational waves are said to be quadrupole
> transverse waves.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image002.png at 01D0A8ED.86E3B590]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
> *Sent:* 17 June 2015 17:12
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>
>
>
> 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
> <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=%22speed%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
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image003.png at 01D0A8ED.86E3B590]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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/*4π*εoc*4)1/2 = *Lp /qp* ≈ 8.61 x 10-18 m*/*C
>
>
>
> (1/4π*εo*)(1/2) = *c4/G*
>
> *G* = 4π*εoc4**η**2*
>
>
>
> 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
> <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.natureoflightandparticles.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20150618/9fd0cf8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/9fd0cf8f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 163679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/9fd0cf8f/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/9fd0cf8f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/9fd0cf8f/attachment-0001.png>