[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Thu Jun 18 13:08:23 PDT 2015

Martin:

Einstein said what he said. Light curves because the speed of light varies
with position. Not because space is curved, or because spacetime is curved.
But because space is inhomogeneous
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22n
either%20homogeneous%22> , see attached. Because a concentration of energy
tied up in the guise of a massive star “conditions” the surrounding space,
altering its metrical properties. And all that comes from the guy who said
the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, just like your light
in a box <http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm> . So brace yourself
my Flemish friend, and take a stiff drink. Then watch my lips and listen
carefully: what you’ve been taught about relativity is wrong.  Just like
what I was taught about electrons
<http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellRe
adMore.html>  is wrong. And note this: people, especially principal
scientists, have a bad habit of rejecting anything that challenges what they
were taught. That’s why it took you six years to get that paper  into a
journal, and why eighteen years later, people still reject the idea that the
electron is a photon going round and round. They would rather believe in
magic and wallow in mystery. 

But we don’t, do we?     

Andrew:

Re once again we are in close agreement, good stuff. If nobody agreed about
anything, life would be hard, If we all agreed about everything, life would
be soft. But somewhere between the two, it’s just right.  

Regards

John D 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 18 June 2015 12:26
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

John, just forget it and go fishing.

If you do not want to use the same words for the same meaning as others have
done, then there cannot be a discussion. Period.

Your potentially good understanding of relativity is severely hampered by
it.

Have  a beer, cheers, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark

Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven

High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)

Prof. Holstlaan 4

5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.
natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: donderdag 18 juni 2015 8:17
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Martin:

The problem is that the speed of light isn’t constant. Forget about
inertial frames or accelerated frames, because you cannot point up to the
clear night sky and say “look, there’s a reference frame”. A reference
frame is an abstract thing associated with your measurements. Just think
about the room you’re in. In this room an optical clock near the floor goes
slower than an optical clock near the ceiling. And there is no actual time
flowing through these clocks. Instead what you have in those clocks is, at
the fundamental level, light, moving. So why does light curve downwards?
Let’s ask Einstein
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22s
peed%20of%20light%22> : 

“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed
of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in
spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration
shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of
light is spatially variable”. 

Einstein never ever said light curves because spacetime is curved. He said
this
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/360?highlightText=%22v
elocity%20of%20light%22> :

“This was possible on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity
of light. But according to Section 21, the general theory of relativity
cannot retain this law”.

And this
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/340?highlightText=%22l
aid%20in%20the%20dust%22> .

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory
of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo,
which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special
theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred,
cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only
take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.
Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity;
its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of
gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”

Like I said, some of the translations use the word velocity when it should
have been speed. Light curves because the speed of light varies with
position. It isn’t totally unlike sonar
<http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/SNR_PROP/snr_prop.htm> . 

So when your electron falls down, it ain’t magic:

Regards

John D

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 17 June 2015 23:53
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Dear John D, 

As john M is corectly trying to point out, but i will say it in a slightly
different way:

The speed of light is supposed to be constant in an any inertial frame (and
it is!!!). The pressence of a gravitational field implies an accelerated
frame, by the principle of equivalence it can locally be replaced by an
accelerating space ship or elevator or what. 

What is the problem? Special relativity can already deal with this
correctly, and there should be no confusion about the definitions.

Claming that there is a problem with the non-constancy of the speed of light
is a mistake: it is exactly non constant in the way it should be, in
accordance with the constancy of light speed as measured in any inertial
(lorentz) frame or even very local, and if horizontal, in a gravitational
field!

Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 17 jun. 2015 om 22:38 heeft John Macken <john at macken.com
<mailto:john at macken.com> > het volgende geschreven:

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]
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>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 and check out
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_ligh
t.html> this Baez article. 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  <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.
edu/vol6-trans/360?highlightText=%22velocity%20of%20light%22> this 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:

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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation> mass
deficit. 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  

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.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]
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
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22s
peed%20of%20light%22> here. 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

<image003.jpg>

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/η2) = 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
<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: 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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

  _____  

The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/7a7c14cd/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/7a7c14cd/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/7a7c14cd/attachment-0002.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/7a7c14cd/attachment-0003.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 46372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/7a7c14cd/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: InhomogeneousVacuum.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1163871 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150618/7a7c14cd/attachment-0001.pdf>