[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John W.,

Once again, I agree with you. However, starting from opposite directions
and approaching the same point can appear to be 'opposing' views. I just
wanted to make sure that people did not get the impression that the goals
were incompatible.

Thank you for the clarification.

Andrew

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:30 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Dear Andrew,
>
> Thank you for that. I do not think John M and I have opposing views. I
> agree with most of what he says, admire his boldness in starting from a
> pretty extreme position, love his competence and depth of understanding of
> special and general relativity, am deeply impressed with the wonderful
> diagrams and videos and know full-well the enormity of the task he is
> trying to fathom in a multi-dimensional way. We only differ on a few things
> here there such as whether the cart should go in front (front wheel drive)
> or behind (rear wheel drive) of whatever hi-tec object we are going to come
> up with to drive it. Obviously, eventually, its going to have to have drive
> to all wheels.
>
> Full-on robust debate is the true sign of deep respect. All of us get
> things wrong all the time (I know I do!). You have got to try stuff to
> change stuff. Working alone, it is very easy to get stuck with some things
> (I am so lucky to work with Martin!). I just think he has got blind to a
> thing or too, here and there, without anyone on the vicinity who can work
> at his (high) level. He needs (and we all need) to have weaknesses brought
> clearly into the light. I'm quite sure the same is true for me and am
> relying on all you guys to do this for me too!
>
> Regards to all,
>
> John W.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew
> Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:07 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew
> Meulenberg
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>
>    Dear John M.,
>
>  I agree with much that you say here. But I also agree with much of what
> John W. says. Perhaps my being able to agree with apparently opposing views
> is from an inability to think clearly. Perhaps my fuzzy thinking gives me
> the ability to overlook words and to see intent. I hope that this group
> will be able to integrate all of the approaches that have been and will be
> presented and that the different members will be able to learn and
> understand the others so that a completed picture, which will be
> incontrovertible, can be produced. It won't happen this year. But we may be
> able to make a start.
>
>  I don't have time right now for major discussions or even a reading of
> the many views. The latter is an important prerequisite of the former.
> However, I will mention one of the things that has been valuable for me
> over the last decade: evanescent waves. I think this topic has not been
> taught much and is too often ignored. That is too bad since it answers many
> questions, including your's about the virtual photon. I believe that
> virtual particles and virtual photons are evanescent waves, which
> properties can explain many of the things swept under the rug as QM
> 'magic'. They are a part of photons (and thus all particles) and an
> important part of understanding the nature of light. I expect that your
> approach and concepts will be of similar value to me as I have time to
> study them.
>
>  Andrew
> ____________________________
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:16 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
>
>>  Rich, Chip, David and John W.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question has been asked, “How is charge produced by an electron?”  A
>> rephrasing of this question would be; How does an electron or photon
>> produce an electric field?” I am under the impression that I am the only
>> one in the group that has written a paper that answers these questions. If
>> anyone knows of an another theory which gives a physical description of how
>> charge or electric field is produced, I would be interested in hearing
>> about it.  I would like to reference the other theories in the paper that I
>> am writing. I am excluding anything that involves virtual photons unless a
>> physical description of a virtual photon is given.  Merely using the words
>> “virtual photon” is just giving a name to something that is not understood.
>>
>>
>>
>> From a philosophical point of view, a real answer to these questions
>> requires that charge and electric field must be described in terms of
>> something else that is truly fundamental.  It is fine to quote Maxwell’s
>> equations and equations for the energy density of an electric or magnetic
>> “field” but what exactly is the field made of?  Only if that question can
>> be answered is it possible to begin to answer the question: How does an
>> electron produce an electric field?
>>
>>
>>
>> My answer to these questions starts by requiring that we give a physical
>> description to spacetime, zero point energy, virtual particle pair
>> production, etc.  I accept the implication that the vacuum has a hidden
>> form of energy density which can be loosely described as the harmonic
>> oscillators of zero point energy. I then look to gravitational wave
>> equations from GR to see if they can help describe the mysterious
>> properties of spacetime.  Gravitational waves are propagating in the medium
>> of spacetime, so they can reveal some of the hidden properties of
>> spacetime.  The first finding is that spacetime has impedance of *Zs =
>> c3/G* = 4.04x1035 kg/s. The units kg/s is strange because spacetime does
>> not seem to have any inertia.  However, the unit kg is just a human
>> convention. We could have made the choice to make energy rather than mass
>> one of our basic units such as we use eV in particle physics rather than
>> kg. Therefore, the impedance of spacetime is more correctly expressed using
>> energy (J).  The conversion is: kg/s = J s/m2. The reason for mentioning
>> this is that I have also calculated the energy density of spacetime (*Us*)
>> implied by gravitational wave equations. If a gravitational wave has
>> angular frequency of *ω*, then it interacts with the following energy
>> density:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Us = c2ω2/G*
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a wonderful result because if exactly fits with the energetic
>> spacetime model that I propose.  However, I want to return to the questions
>> about charge and electric field.  I have proposed that what appears to be a
>> static electric field such as is produced by an electron is actually a
>> combination of an oscillating strain of space producing a non-oscillating
>> strain of space.   The non-oscillating strain is what we measure as the
>> electric field, however, the energy density that we associate with an
>> electric field is the result of the required oscillating component.
>> Photons obviously produce oscillating components and we can see the
>> associated electric and magnetic “fields”.
>>
>>
>>
>> I quantify the strain of spacetime per coulomb of charge.  When this is
>> reduced to a physical effect, the implication is that a cubic vacuum
>> capacitor should have a maximum possible voltage that can be placed on the
>> plates.  This has nothing to do with field emission of the like, I am
>> talking about the maximum possible strain of spacetime for a cubic vacuum
>> capacitor.  The limit turns out to correspond to the energy which would
>> produce a black hole for the size of the cubic capacitor.  There is a
>> similar limit associated with photons and again this limit corresponds to
>> forming a black hole. There are many other tests which this model has
>> passed.  Everything fits together.  Therefore, when I hear members of the
>> group wondering about charge and electric field, occasionally I am driven
>> to writing a post such as this.
>>
>>
>>
>> John M.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+john=
>> macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *David
>> Mathes
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 6:08 AM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich and Chip
>>
>>
>>
>> “how is charge produced in an electron?”
>>
>>
>>
>> Since we are asking questions....
>>
>>
>>
>> How is charge produced by a photon?
>>
>>
>>
>> How is charge produced within the photon?
>>
>>
>>
>> How is quantum charge (1/3 e-) produced?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is charge so closely couple with mass? Are these essentially one and
>> the same effect?
>>
>>
>>
>> ...Charge by a photon...
>>
>>
>>
>> I've looked at this a number of different ways. Clearly, curved path of a
>> photon plays a role, perhaps an off-geodesic path that causes some sort of
>> friction or emission. The difficulty is that the photon seems to be
>> self-energizing which leads one to look at a curved photon interacting with
>> spacetime. SRT can be used on a photon normally where the velocity is
>> constant. For any photon, especially a photon acceleration or deceleration,
>> and in the parlance, off-geodesic movement by the photon, GRT is required.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the interaction between photon in the longitudinal direction or the
>> transverse direction? After all, the E vector is transverse to the photon's
>> travel. For one cycle of a wavelet, the photon's electric field averages
>> zero. However, if we "stop" the photon and examine by reduction to a small
>> part of the wavelet, we find the electric vector, the magnetic vector, and
>> the Poynting vector, *S = E X B.*
>>
>>
>>
>> So if we think for a moment of this photon in an electron, and focus just
>> on the electric field, in a confined circular volume, we might think the
>> electric field vector in the photon is sweeping out all other charged
>> particles including quarks and weak particles. Likewise, we might also
>> conclude no other magnetic particles are permitted. And yet, an
>> uncharged photon which has the E and B field vectors can traverse an
>> electron as if superposition is permitted between the two.
>>
>>
>>
>> A photon traversing the electron might be considered  as a photon-photon
>> interaction. Are the following equivalent?
>>
>>
>>
>> photon-photon - Neutral particle vs neutral
>>
>> photon-electron - neutral vs charged
>>
>> electron-electron - Coulomb charge (repulsion)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Interactions: e-e-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.itp.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a3233/upload/SS12/TheoFest2012/Kapitel/Chapter_3.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~pjh/teaching/phz7427/7427notes/ch2.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> [1412.0115] Landau level spectroscopy of electron-electron interactions
>> in graphene <http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0115>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1012.3484] Electron-Electron Interactions in Graphene: Current Status
>> and Perspectives <http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3484>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Effect of Electron-Electron Interaction on the Nuclear Spin
>> Relaxation in Metals - Journal of the Physical Society of Japan
>> <http://journals.jps.jp/doi/abs/10.1143/JPSJ.18.516>
>>
>>
>>
>> Zero bias anomaly in tunnel resistance and electron-electron interaction
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038109879909670>
>>
>>
>>
>> Shell structure and electron-electron interaction in self-assembled InAs
>> quantum dots
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9609270.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 5:24 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> Chip,
>>
>>     Yes, the question should be “how is charge produced in an electron?”
>> Theories that declare that charge cannot travel at the speed of light may
>> need to be reexamined. Hestenes' zitter model of the electron has electric
>> charge traveling in a helix at light-speed for example. Maybe its
>> mathematical “center of charge” travels at less that the speed of light,
>> but this could also be the case in a charged photon model which has a
>> proposed helical motion in a moving electron and this helical motion is at
>> light speed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> I defense of your approach, lets briefly and simply discuss the photon,
>> “charged photon” and electron.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your model suggests that an electron is a charged photon.  The electron
>> has charge.  All the energy in the electron is in the constituent photon.
>> Upon annihilation the photon is released (as a normal uncharged photon).
>> So that implies that the photon was in the electron and it had charge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our normal definition of a photon is that it is light speed and has no
>> charge, however when confined, many of us have suggested that the topology
>> of confinement can cause charge.  When confined it would still be traveling
>> at light speed, so that has not changed, the only thing that has changed is
>> that something has caused confinement and charge.  Confinement and charge
>> seem to be linked in that perhaps charge can only result from confinement.
>> But when confined (and charged) we normally call it something else. It the
>> photon still inside the electron?  It seems it is. Because we can release
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> So my opinion is that your title, and your paper, are another valuable
>> illustrative view, and that it helps us to comprehend some of the
>> subtleties of the electron.
>>
>>
>>
>> While it may be perceived as a stretch to assign charge to a photon,
>> because it does not seem that it would be possible for a free linearly
>> traveling photon to exhibit charge… your electron model, as many of our
>> models, contains a confined photon, all the energy of the electron is in
>> the photon, the particle made of the confined photon has charge, so under
>> those circumstances I don’t see why you can’t call it a charged photon to
>> illustrate the point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> ] *On Behalf Of* Richard Gauthier
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 9:33 AM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello John W and others,
>>
>>
>>
>>   I recently posed a question on ResearchGate on my charged photon model
>> — “Can an electron be a charged photon with spin 1/2 hbar?", and am getting
>> some good feedback. You are all welcome to join the discussion there and
>> share your views, criticisms and comments.   Here’s my reply to one of the
>> questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Stam, Thank your for your comments and criticisms. I am not saying
>> that a spin 1 uncharged photon with no rest mass is the same as a spin 1/2
>> charged electron with rest mass. Clearly these are two different particles.
>> What I am proposing is that a hypothetical particle (a charged photon)  may
>> have the essential properties of an ordinary photon -- its speed of light
>> c, its momentum p=h/lambda and its energy E=hf relationships -- and yet
>> have a different spin, charge and rest mass than the ordinary photon.  We
>> may differ on what we think are the essential properties of a photon, but I
>> think that the properties of a photon -- the photon's charge, spin and rest
>> mass --which change in a particle transformation such as electron-positron
>> pair production when a photon interacts with an atomic nucleus (to conserve
>> linear momentum) may be less essential to the fundamental nature of the
>> photon than the properties of the proposed hypothetical photon that may
>> remain--c, p=h/lambda and E=hf--to form the electron with its charge, spin
>> and rest mass.  So I am proposing that it may be useful to think of photons
>> as coming in two varieties that both have the speed of light, energy and
>> momentum properties mentioned above but have different charge, spin and
>> rest mass. In pair production, one particle--the photon-- is transformed
>> into two different particles. The spin 1 photon converts to 2 spin 1/2
>> particles, the uncharged photon is converted into two oppositely charged
>> particles, and the no-rest-mass photon is converted into 2 particles with
>> rest mass, when the the incoming photon has sufficient energy. But what if
>> the essential properties of the photon -- c, E=hf, and p=h/lambda -- remain
>> unobserved in the electron (yet generate the electron's de Broglie
>> wavelength and the electron's quantum wave functions), while the observed
>> properties spin, charge and rest mass of the charged photon--now called an
>> electron -- are different that that of the ordinary photon. Are you saying
>> that this view is not physically meaningful or contradicts any current
>> physical theory?
>> *Can an electron be a charged photon with spin 1/2 hbar? - ResearchGate*.
>> Available from:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_an_electron_be_a_charged_photon_with_spin_1_2_hbar [accessed
>> Jun 21, 2015].
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:53 PM, John Williamson <
>> John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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*
>> /*λ*c ≈ 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 *ω*c/*ω*p ≈ 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 = *As*2 = (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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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>.
>>
>>
>>
>> <image001.gif>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So when your electron falls down, it ain’t magic:
>>
>>
>>
>> <image002.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John D
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> ] *On Behalf Of* 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
>> <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:
>>
>>
>>
>> <image003.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> <image004.png>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> ] *On Behalf Of* John Macken
>> *Sent:* 17 June 2015 17:12
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> John D.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that you are not being precise enough when you say that the speed
>> of light is not constant.  There are two definitions for ways of measuring
>> the speed of light.  In one of them the speed of light is constant and in
>> the other the speed of light is not constant.  If the speed of light is
>> measured locally (using a local clock and ruler), then the speed of light
>> is always constant.  If you adopt a single clock to measure the speed of
>> light in different gravitational potentials, then the speed of light
>> varies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even your interpretation of the amount that it varies depends on one
>> other choice.  This point will be illustrated with an example.  When light
>> is bent by passing near a large mass such as the sun, the angle is twice
>> what might be expected from the classical model of the light feeling
>> gravitational acceleration and “falling” as it passed the massive body.
>> The factor of 2 can be explained two different ways. I will not go into the
>> details here because they are covered in chapters 2 and 3 of my book.
>> However, the key difference between these two choices lies in the handling
>> of the gravitational effect on volume.  The Shapiro experiment showed that
>> the sun has enlarged the volume of the surrounding space beyond what would
>> be expected from Euclidian geometry.  If the photon passing through this
>> volume is given credit for having traveled a greater distance, then the
>> effect on the radial coordinate speed of light is different than if this
>> effect on space is ignored and all the bending is attributed to a slowing
>> in the coordinate speed of light.
>>
>>
>>
>> On another point, I am not sure that I understood your comment about the
>> analogy to the sheer wave speed of sound.  Sound wave analogies break down
>> when you get into sheer waves.  Spacetime does not need to be a rigid
>> medium like a solid in order to be able to support transverse waves.  When
>> we are dealing with waves propagating at the speed of light, effects occur
>> which are not analogous to waves propagating at far less than the speed of
>> light.  The fact that gravitational waves are transverse waves without
>> spacetime being a rigid body is one of these differences.
>>
>>
>>
>> John M.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of* John Duffield
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:43 PM
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> John M:
>>
>>
>>
>> Take care with constants. In mechanics a shear wave travels at a velocity
>> determined by the stiffness and density of the medium:
>>
>>
>>
>>          v = √(G/ρ)
>>
>>
>>
>> The G here is the *shear modulus of elasticity*, the ρ is the density.
>> The equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer,
>> and slower if the density increases. You can’t directly apply the concept
>> of density to space, but in electrodynamics the velocity equation is
>> remarkably similar:
>>
>>
>>
>>          c = √(1/ε0μ0)
>>
>>
>>
>> People are taught that the speed of light is constant, but it simply
>> isn’t true. See the second paragraph here
>> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22speed%20of%20light%22>.
>> If the speed of light was constant in the room you’re in, optical clocks
>> wouldn’t go slower when they’re lower, and your pencil wouldn’t fall down.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John D
>>
>>
>>
>> <image003.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> ] *On Behalf Of* John Macken
>> *Sent:* 17 June 2015 02:07
>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello John W. and All,
>>
>>
>>
>> In your response you said,
>>
>>
>>
>> Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi
>> epsilon zero)  ... thus eliminating (in principle)  yet another natural
>> constant altogether:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is very interesting since this implies an alternative to my charge
>> conversion constant *η*.
>>
>>
>>
>> *η* ≡ (*G/*4π*εoc*4)1/2 = *Lp* */**qp* ≈ 8.61 x 10-18 m*/*C
>>
>>
>>
>> (1/4π*εo*)(1/*η*2) = *c4/G*
>>
>> *G* = 4π*εoc4**η**2*
>>
>>
>>
>> I admit that I think that my charge conversion constant is perfect.
>> Therefore, I would like to make a comparison to your derivation that
>> eliminates the constant 1/4πεo.
>>
>>
>>
>> John M.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of* John Williamson
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:47 PM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Cc:* Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Philipp Steinmann
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear John M and everyone,
>>
>> Indeed it is useful to think about the relationship between things. I
>> also agree with John M that gravity and electromagnetism are different
>> aspects of the same thing. As I have said before,  Martin and I developed a
>> toy theory of these a decade or two ago which gave the right numbers (with
>> zero extra background mass/energy) but has not developed further than a a
>> few pages in our "appendix" due to lack of time or energy due to the
>> demands of our day jobs.
>>
>> At the end of the day, replacing one universal constant with another,
>> related one is zero net progress.  In Martin and my 1997 paper we
>> calculated the charge in terms of Planck's constant (or vice versa).   This
>> is one fundamental constant less. The basic idea was that the oscillating
>> electric field of the photon became uni-directional due to the folding of
>> the photon path into a double-loop.
>>
>> The hope with the new theory, which incorporates the experimentally
>> observed properties of the four-dimensions of space and time from the
>> outset, is that one can use it to calculate BOTH from first principles. I
>> have tried this within the framework of an emission/absorption model in the
>> new classical field theory - and obtained an answer - but it is currently a
>> couple orders of magnitude out.  This is one of the areas I hope to get
>> some help from with within the group - especially those with specialist
>> knowledge of Atomic physics - which is where I think the answer lies.
>> Martin and I are anyway onto this - and he is already brushing up on his
>> understanding of Atomic physics (amongst one or two other things!) to help
>> to try to get a handle on this.
>>
>> Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi
>> epsilon zero)  ... thus eliminating (in principle)  yet another natural
>> constant altogether: one of the essential assumptions in deriving this was
>> precisely that there was zero net energy in the vacuum fluctuations. As is
>> observed.
>>
>> Regards, John W.
>>    ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:56 PM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles
>> *Subject:* [General] Electrical Charge and Photons
>>
>> Hello John W and Everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> In looking over one of the papers sent by John W. I was struck by the
>> following sentences:
>>
>>
>>
>> This comes to one of the central, outstanding mysteries of physics. What
>> is the underlying nature of quantized charge?
>>
>>
>>
>> It has occurred to me that I can make a contribution to answering this
>> question.  Attached is several pages from chapter 9 of the revised version
>> of my book.  In this I propose a “charge conversion constant” and show the
>> implications of this towards explaining the properties of a photon.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate hearing if anyone can find a single case where using
>> the charge conversion constant gives an unreasonable answer.  Also, the
>> paper implies that the spacetime field is the new aether.  Can you find any
>> reasons why this is not correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150623/3a975e76/attachment.htm>