[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

[John Williamson]

Dear John M,

Thank you for your reply. I think there is very much that is good in your work and your thinking, but I think you perhaps have started from the wrong place in feeling that you have to put in G, c, ħ and εo from the beginning (let alone the fine structure constant!).

These are constants you should aspire to get out of a fundamental theory.

The starting point of mega- giga-tera-peta-exa astronomical energy densities (I don't think even that was enough zeroes!) is anyway, for most, not the fashionable, central point of physics as it stands, but rather the crazy edge where current physics is thought to, as your Wikipedia quote suggests, break down. Now this would not matter to me, if it was not for the fact that this, in our joint discussion, may mistakenly be taken by others in the outside world as a necessary part of our, and hence my, new theory of light and matter. Like it or not, we will get seen as a group. It is the natural error you made yourself when you joined this group and confused what was essentially Richards position, of being representive of my, Martin's Andrew's, Viv's and Chandra's positions. Just not so! I am already being dismissed by current physics as crazy as it is without associating myself with more things though to be beyond-the-pale.

Coming back to the physics: your analogies of light and material particles, as vibrations of the underlying medium of space and time, stand without starting from some fixed properties. For me this has the added advantage of being far closer to my position - that much of what we perceive as reality stems from the underlying nature of space and time. Here, we agree. The point is -why give yourself a fixed limit based on a handful of physical constants set as your starting point (and thus further immutable and incalculable). Far better to calculate G in terms of electromagnetism rather than put it in a-priori (which is what Martin and my toy model does - toy or not). As I said before, space and time have to be stiff and strong, not massive and energetic, and it is actually these properties that you use to derive your results. Change your limit and the strain in the oscillations goes from the far sub-quantum to something closer to the actual kind of vibration observed in particles. Why not just take it all the way to that which you observe? Forget about there being a "maximum possible" for any aspect of space-time.  That is only of any relevance in extrapolating present theories grounded in experiment in the linear regime, far to the point where they become non-linear. Why start by limiting yourself, especially to something you do not actually know and in a regime completely in-accessible to human experiment!

Also, while on the theme of Gravitation, I want to take back much of what I said in the last paragraph in my previous email. It was partly due to me panicking a bit on not making enough progress with moving towards some looming deadlines (mostly from work, though July 15th is also getting rapidly closer), and feeling the need to put in precious time to ground a discussion I felt was getting out of hand and absorbing too much of all our energies uneccesarily (as GenRel workes just fine in explaining it as it is). My apologies. There should be no limit on any of our thinking. In fact, perhaps there should be a follow-up workshop on space, time and gravitation. This is something for discussion in the cafe's in San Diego. My only decent point was that it was not, strictly, the theme of this upcoming conference.

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: Friday, June 19, 2015 11:33 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

John W.

Thank you for your thoughtful views and summary of past discussions.  I have one small point of clarification of my position.  First, the term “Planck scale” has a specific meaning which does not fit with my work on particles and forces.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about “Planck scale”

“In particle physics<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics> and physical cosmology<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology>, the Planck scale is an energy scale<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_scale> around 1.22 × 1019 GeV<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeV> (which corresponds to the mass–energy equivalence<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence> of the Planck mass<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass>2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_effects> of gravity<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity> become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory> break down.”

For example, my model of an electron is a Planck length and Planck time displacement of spacetime, rotating at the speed of light, but this is not the same as “Planck scale”.  The displacement occurs over a radial distance equal to an electron’s reduced Compton wavelength (about 3.86x10-13 m). In order for this to be Planck scale (Planck energy) the same displacement would have to occur over a distance equal to Planck length.

The important point is that even though the displacement of spacetime is the same, the “strain amplitude” is the important measurement of wave amplitude.  For example, an electron has strain amplitude of: As = Lp/λc ≈ 4.18x10-23 (a dimensionless number) while the strain amplitude of a hypothetical Planck mass would be As = Lp/Lp = 1 (the maximum possible strain amplitude).  An electron’s reduced angular frequency divided by Planck frequency is also ωc/ωp ≈ 4.18x10-23. In fact, this number occurs everywhere when describing properties of an electron.  Even the previously discussed ratio of the forces produced between two electrons at arbitrary distance r  is:

Fg/Feα-1 = As2 = (4.18x10-23)2

I admit that the proposed energy density of the vacuum can be classified as Planck scale, but that is undetectable energy that lacks angular momentum.  It is not really the same as any type of observable energy that we might encounter.  It merely is necessary to give spacetime its properties of G, c, ħ and εo.  It is the background “quantum foam” that forms the characteristics of spacetime.  Spacetime is not a fixed grid.  Because of this activity, it is not possible to reference motion relative to spacetime.

John M.


From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 12:36 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Dear people,

There is no issue. The speed of light has, as John M and Martin say, a definition. It is the rate of change of space with respect to time. Measured locally. Given this definition it is as John D points out, a tautology that the speed of light is constant as measured in all inertial frames. With this definition it then makes no sense to say that something that is constant varies.

In accelerated or gravitational frames the situation is different - exactly as John M points out. Indeed, as John D says the speed of light may be viewed as varying  with respect to space wrt any given observer. Equally, it may be viewed as a variation on the rate of change of space with respect to some standard. These are reciprocal views of the same thing. You can say I want to keep my space constant and vary velocity (John D), or keep my velocity constant and vary space (John M and Martin). It is worth noting though that describing particles as terms of vibrations of the elastic spacetime medium (John D and John M) is inconstistent with keeping space as a fixed grid!

Frankly I do not give a damn ( I have a preference for constant velocity and inconstant space - but then), I can see both (or all three!) at the same time. So what? Provided the effect is very small (say compared to the wavelength of light) it does not matter which way you choose to look at it, both are entirely equivalent. General relativity, in general, is written from the John M-Martin perspective).  As Martin says, it works, and it describes the situation perfectly. END of story.

Einstein did indeed worry about the limits - but Einstein worried about a lot of things. He was not one-shot one-idea Einstein. He played with ideas -looked at things from different angles. There is no definitive Einstein, and more than there is a definitive Williamson, Macken, Duffield or van der Mark. Einstein, though I wish he was still here, is not. Smart though he was, he was not (just like the rest of us) always right. He cannot still argue for himself and we must not stand him up as an ultimate authority on everything, but must argue from the merits of every standpoint.

Now, this is all a very interesting discussion, but gravitation is a very weak (for me derivative of EM) effect. It only really becomes of any pertinence at all in terms of electromagnetism, the photon or the confinement of the electron at ridiculously, experimentally unattainable densities at the Planck scale. Now this is a very interesting discussion- but is distracting me and many of you from the theme of the upcoming conference. We are wasting time on details 20 orders of magnitude outside of where we need to focus for the time being. It is, in my view, really for a different conference in a different context at a different time.

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:05 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
Martin:

I’m not dismissing the use of inertial reference frames. I’m trying to get you to pay attention to what Einstein said: light curves because the speed of light varies with position.
Please note I’m not proposing some idea I’ve dreamt up. I’m not some “my theory” guy. You aren’t disagreeing with me, you’re disagreeing with Einstein. I think this point is crucial to avoid “geon” misunderstandings. So please explain why you think light curves in a  gravitational field, and I’ll try to point out the issues with your explanation. The thing to appreciate is that there’s physicists out there who will teach you all about general relativity, but when you read Einstein’s original material, you realise that they flatly contradicted Einstein whilst appealing to his authority.

Make sure you read this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

This is the previous version: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

PhysicsFAQ editor Don Koks rewrote this article after I pointed out that it contradicted itself. It previously said this: This [VSL]  interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity.  Followed by this: Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies.

The speed of light varies in the room you’re in. If it didn’t, your pencil wouldn’t fall down.

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 18 June 2015 22:30
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

John, here is a better quality print of the paper.
Since you dismiss the use of inertial reference frames you are automatically screwing up the very notion of what the speed of light is.
Hence you cannot, and are not, talking in a self-consistent fashion about it. Not that anything you say is wrong by itself, but it doesn’t make a logical or complete argument.
I have studied it for a long time and have seen people get their knickers in a twist, being confused, and so on. Apparently it is not easy: Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, cannot even get the photon in a box idea, which you actually do get! I just cannot figure out where your problem is, really, it must be coming from contamination with another problem in physics, you see, you are a very associative thinker (I like that, but it requires retracing the sloppy jumps to conclusions to make proper science).
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 22:08
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

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=%22neither%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_NutshellReadMore.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.natureoflightandparticles.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=%22speed%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=%22velocity%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=%22laid%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>.

[cid:image001.gif at 01D0AA9E.A67ABA40]


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

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D0AA9E.A67ABA40]

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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 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:

[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

[cid:image002.png at 01D0A8ED.86E3B590]


From: General [mailto: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] 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

<image003.jpg>


From: General [mailto: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/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.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=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/20150620/e1f6da8c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2642 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/e1f6da8c/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2555 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/e1f6da8c/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1596 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/e1f6da8c/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46372 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/e1f6da8c/attachment.png>