[General] Force Equations

Tue May 26 05:05:56 PDT 2015

Dear David and Martin,

This exchange has just challenged me to re-examine some of my thinking.

Based on the paper that I will write for the conference (and another one*
that I just submitted to arXiv and will submit to a journal), I will be
proposing that mass and charge are expressions of the same thing (not just
both having energy). However, in a photon, the net charge is zero, but it
has alternating fields (concentrated locally over an extended photon
length). If the 'charge' reflected in the waves is alternating, does not
the mass also alternate? But, if it alternates + and - (to give a net-zero
mass), how can the photon have inertia and momentum? How can it be measured
when captured in Martin's box? I now have to assume that the mass must be
related to the square (or absolute value) of the charge. Is this not close
to what John M. has proposed? Actually, the energy is proportional to the
square of the fields, so this would be a natural conclusion that might be
independent of John M.s model. But it does address, at least partially, the
nature of mass of a photon.

Since I have shown in the papers that relativistic mass is EM field energy,
there are other implications as well.

Andrew

* I think that I posted an earlier draft of this. But, here is the latest
version.
___________________________________________

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

>  Dear David,
>
> Light has mass, it is always the same: m=E/c^2 = hbar*omega or
> m=p/c=hbar*k. If it hits you, you will notice its momentum, hence its mass.
> Only if you put it in a box you will really be able to experience the mass
> as gravitational, see "light is heavy" for a proper explanation of the
> relativistic facts and confusions. The reason is that with the box around
> it cannot fly away so that you will not be able to interact with it to
> actually notice the mass.
>
> The experiments you mention do just that: making a box.
>
> Regards, 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 *David
> Mathes
> *Sent:* dinsdag 26 mei 2015 6:29
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Force Equations
>
>
>
> John M., Andrew et al
>
>
>
> If the gravitational component stops oscillating, then the non-oscillating
> component might provide insight into a stopped or frozen photon.
>
>
>
> Does the Poynting vector disappear if there is no oscillation? That is, is
> the Poynting vector frequency dependent?
>
>
>
> To examine this point, perhaps we need to move up to four-vector or full
> tensor at least for the theory
>
>
>
> So far, photon-defined electron theories assume zero for the rest mass for
> the photon. If the photon has mass, one would expect charge. If there is
> mass with no charge, we have some explaining to do. And better measurement
> of mass is required. So, if we could stop the photon and measure the mass -
> no matter how small but greater than zero - should we expect charge?
>
>
>
> The current batch of electron theories suggest that photons are confined,
> contained, and charged to form an electron. So a linear path photon
> undergoes a transformation to a curved path charged photon that behaves
> like the electron. However, the photon is massless and the electron has a
> clearly defined mass. Perhaps we cannot measure the photon mass because
> it's so small. After all, if there is any mass to the photon, then it might
> be possible to lower the mass even further and create the massless
> particle.
>
>
>
> If we could stop a photon and then restart the photon, one would expect
> the photon to continue on it's original vector.
>
>
>
>  There are at least two papers where photons have been stopped or frozen.
> In the following experiment, light was stopped for about one minute. This
> store-and-forward photon may be the basis of future quantum computing and
> communications systems. Then a few years later, a photon was "frozen" with
> an opaque crystal. To me, this trapping sounds like a squeezed state or a
> Glauber state.
>
>
>  Stopped Light and Image Storage by Electromagnetically Induced
> Transparency up to the Regime of One Minute
>
> http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.033601
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=13459
>
>
>  Sept 8, 2014 Observation of a Dissipation-Induced Classical to Quantum
> Transition
>
> http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031043
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=13459
>
>
>
> The mechanisms for stopping or freezing light aren't fully understood
> which may include CPT violation or other anomalies. One possibility is the
> photon is in a squeezed state or a Glauber coherence state. If chirality
> suffers, the we have a parity violation resulting in CP or PT violations
> since CPT violations come in pairs. If charge is created by this stopped
> photon, is mass created? Then we have CP and CT as options.
>
>
>
> Photons are normally considered to be non-stop particles. However, in
> these two cases they appear more as direct flight particles with zero mass
> that when released continue on.
>
>
>
>
>
> Does a trapped photon have any rest mass?
>
>
>
> How would a photon with a rest mass affect the photon-electron
> relationship?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2015 8:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Force Equations
>
>
>
> Dear John M.,
>
> You may be saving me a lot of work. I was planning on working on
> super-gravity this year and was basing it on energy-density-induced
> non-linearities. You may have solved the problem, or at least laid the
> ground work, before I ever get to it. Your statement "... gravitational
> waves require spacetime to have the specified *energy density*... ," is
> definitely pushing in the right direction. General Relativity is concerned
> about mass. At the basic level, it is mass/energy density that controls the
> interactions. This goes to the nuclear levels, i.e., below the region of
> validity for QM as we know it.
>
> Your study of the various ratios, and the identification of relationships
> leads to a whole field of information that is to easy to overlook without
> your signposts.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Andrew
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
>   However, I have also had two other major successes which I will briefly
> mention here.  In the future I will dedicate a separate email to each of
> these other subjects.  First, my son Jim,  has generated computer
> simulations which show various characteristics of my particle model. Since
> my model quantifies frequency, amplitude and impedance, my models actually
> represent calculated effects.  I might be able to send some computer
> simulations tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Another success is that I can now show that my model of fundamental
> particles gives new insights into the electric field and the gravitational
> field generated by an electron or other fundamental particle.  I previously
> concluded that an electron's electric field contains both a non-oscillating
> strain of spacetime that produces most of the effects we associate with the
> electric field.  However, there is also an oscillating distortion of
> spacetime at the electron's Compton frequency.  We know the energy density
> of an electron's electric field, the frequency and the impedance of
> spacetime, so we can calculate the amplitude of the wave required to
> produce the known energy density of the electron's electric field.  This
> amplitude exactly corresponds to the expected magnitude and distribution
> expected from my particle model.
>
>
>
> The new gravitational insight is: I can now prove that gravity also has
> both a non-oscillating component that produces curved spacetime and an
> oscillating component that implies that a gravitational field also has
> energy density.  When you compare the energy density of a gravitational
> field to the "interactive energy density of spacetime", it is possible to
> see how the combination produces the curved spacetime.
>
>
>
> The document attached above is a few pages out of the revised version of
> my book.  These pages contain some recently added information and some
> older information which was partly covered in a previous attachment.
> However, I decided to include some of that older information also since it
> sets the stage for the new information.  I had to start somewhere, so the
> attachment starts in the middle of the book.  Even though there is a vast
> amount of missing information, I think that you will be able to get the key
> points from the attachment.
>
>
>
> My approach based on spacetime allows much more detailed analysis than the
> rest of the group because I start with specific properties of spacetime
> which can be quantified.  I have dipole waves in spacetime which have
> specific frequencies, produce specific displacements of space and time and
> have dimensionless strain amplitudes which can be quantified.  Combining
> this with the impedance of spacetime and some equations that I have
> developed, it is possible to calculate particle size, energy, energy
> density, forces, etc.  Most important, the approach predicts that the
> particles (called "rotars) can generate three forces which correspond to
> the strong force, the electromagnetic force and gravity. In a previous post
> I gave some equations which showed previously unknown relationship between
> the gravitational force and the electrostatic force that were derived from
> my model.  Now I have generated more equations which specify the
> relationship between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force
> produced by fundamental particles such as an electron.
>
>
>
> The attached document is 5 pages.  The last 2 pages are totally new, but
> even the first 3 pages can be seen in a new light.  You will see that the
> relationship between the electrostatic force from charge* e* (designated
> *F*e) and the gravitational force (designated *F*g) is independent of the
> model which made these predictions. However, the equations on the last two
> pages fit so well with my model, that they become a proof for the model.
>
>
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150526/c0c77eb2/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mass and the Coulomb potential e_p short4.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 549581 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150526/c0c77eb2/attachment-0001.pdf>