[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Sat Jun 20 05:47:02 PDT 2015

Martin
The following is speculative. There are many theories in variable c, most notably Ben Solomon whose self promotion is extensive in the authoritative journal, Huffington Post.
The value c is defined by EM with permittivity and permeability where c^2 = (e u)^-1 . 
While EM is dominant, I'm wondering if c is properly defined since the above equation does not address the fuller view of electroweak. Furthermore, I'm wondering what the speed of a gluon is.
Perhaps there is another approach to this whole question of the speed of light. I haven't seen it before but when one looks at a strictly EM equation and sees the impedance, the question of quark levels of charge seems only natural.
Could c vary with q? 
David

      From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: 'Nick Bailey' <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org>; 'Manohar .' <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 5:25 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

#yiv9797687145 #yiv9797687145 -- _filtered #yiv9797687145 {font-family:SimSun;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {font-family:inherit;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}#yiv9797687145 #yiv9797687145 p.yiv9797687145MsoNormal, #yiv9797687145 li.yiv9797687145MsoNormal, #yiv9797687145 div.yiv9797687145MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv9797687145 a:link, #yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9797687145 a:visited, #yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9797687145 p {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9797687145 p.yiv9797687145MsoAcetate, #yiv9797687145 li.yiv9797687145MsoAcetate, #yiv9797687145 div.yiv9797687145MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145MsoPlaceholderText {color:gray;}#yiv9797687145 p.yiv9797687145MsoListParagraph, #yiv9797687145 li.yiv9797687145MsoListParagraph, #yiv9797687145 div.yiv9797687145MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145BalloonTextChar {}#yiv9797687145 p.yiv9797687145msochpdefault, #yiv9797687145 li.yiv9797687145msochpdefault, #yiv9797687145 div.yiv9797687145msochpdefault {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145balloontextchar0 {}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle17 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle24 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle25 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle26 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle27 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle28 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle29 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle32 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle33 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle34 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145emailstyle35 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145t-search-snippet1 {}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145t-search-snippet-highlight {}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145EmailStyle37 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 span.yiv9797687145EmailStyle38 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9797687145 .yiv9797687145MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9797687145 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv9797687145 div.yiv9797687145WordSection1 {}#yiv9797687145 Dear John D,  I am glad that you admit your confusion by quoting  Wikipedia, were things are explained correctly. I copy this in for convenience:    Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The description of motion in relativity requires more than one concept of speed.Coordinate speed is the coordinate distance measured by the observer divided by the coordinate time of the observer. Proper speed is the local proper distance divided by the local proper time. For example, at the event horizon of a black hole the coordinate speed of light is zero, while the proper speed is c.[1] The coordinate speed of light (both instantaneous and average) is slowed in the presence of gravitational fields. The local instantaneous proper speed of light is always c.
In an inertial frame an observer cannot detect their motion via light signals as thespeed of light in a vacuum is constant. This means an observer can detect when their motion isaccelerated by studying light signals.    It may be of practical use how many dollars, pounds, euros or yens one has, but fundamentally it is only the proper value that counts. 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: zaterdag 20 juni 2015 10:11
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Cc: 'Nick Bailey'; 'Anthony Booth'; 'Manohar .'; 'Ariane Mandray'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons    John W:    This gravity issue is  important because likeBaez says the distinction between spacetime curvature and spatial curvature is crucial. Saying the space gets bigger isn’t some reciprocal view. There’s a radial length contraction associated with gravity, not a length dilation. A black hole is black because at the event horizon thecoordinate speed of light is zero. Not because space is infinitely bigger, or because space is falling down. Try explainingwhy light curves in a gravitational field. It isn’t because spacetime is curved. It’s becausethe speed of light varies with position. That’s what Einstein said, and that’s what the hard scientific evidence of optical clocks says. Don’t reject it in favour of something from the guy who saidmatter tells space how to curve. Because if you do, it may get in the way ofwhy light curves in an electron. If Wheeler hadn’t been so confused, he wouldn’t have called it ageon, he would have called it an electron, and you and Martin would never have writtenyour paper. There are people out there who reject the Williamson / van der Mark electron but wax lyrical about thestrong curvature regime. They’ve been doing so for decades, all the while warbling on about point particles. Because what they don’t understand is that the strong curvature regime iselectromagnetism. Because they don’t understand gravity. And when I try to explain it to them, what they say isfrankly I do not give a damn.    Regards JohnD    PS: Seethis article for my attempt to explain how gravity works.  OrAlbrecht Giese’s article.         From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 19 June 2015 08:36
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 isinhomogeneous, 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. 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 electronsis 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, peoplestill 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 lightisn’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:    “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of thespeed oflight 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 thespeed oflight is spatially variable”.   Einstein never ever said light curves because spacetime is curved. He saidthis:   “This was possible on the basis of the law of the constancy of thevelocity oflight. But according to Section 21, the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law”.   Andthis.   “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 curvesbecause the speed of light varies with position. It isn’t totally unlike sonar.         So when your electron falls down, it ain’t magic:      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> 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. 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 likethis 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 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.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 theshear 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 paragraphhere. 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 constantη.   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] 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 atmartin.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. 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20150620/525a9ece/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/525a9ece/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/525a9ece/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/525a9ece/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150620/525a9ece/attachment.gif>