[General] Force Equations

Mark, Martin van der martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
Thu May 28 04:14:27 PDT 2015


David, where did I exclude a scalar field?
I was only saying that the picture of a knot made out of an isotropic fibration is simpler than that of an electromagnetic fibration.
A fibration is a lot of fibers “rays”  stacked together. Even if these are isotropic themselves, the whole thing can be twisted, look at a thich cable and the strands in it. Can be complicated.
If the rays or strands or fibers are themselves orientable, complexity is even higher.
Only the simplest knots can, if built from orientable fibers, make up a large spectrum of particles…
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: David Mathes [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: donderdag 28 mei 2015 10:56
To: Mark, Martin van der; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations

Mark

I'll accept that even a simple loop can be a knot. It's not clear to me yet that for all particles in the Standard Model that particles are described by topological knots or need to be that complex.

I'm hesitant to use just a six-vector field without a scalar field. However, one must start somewhere. Perhaps this hesitation is because I'm partial to deBroglie-Bohm and not behold to the Heaviside simplification of Maxwell's original twenty equations. While I think Dirac remedied the situation, and Schroedinger provided zbw as a nice qualification, I'm still not satisfied that one has to give up a scalar field.

I have wondered about the success of toroidal antennas as a conditioner of EM waves since both photonic and electronic waves share similar wave-particle properties and effects. See for example, Barrett 1998, The Toroid Antenna as a Conditioner of Electromagnetic Fields into (Low Energy) Gauge Fields
or the book...Barrett 2008, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism.

Best

David





________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:18 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Force Equations

Dear David, John D
First, thanks John D for the examples you have sent in the mean time.
David, there is in my mind no difference between the PBE and a knot, I think the knot is made of light, essentially.
Note however that the pictures of the knots that John D presented are mad of isotropic rope (you may actually call it string, but that will be confused with string theory)
Electromagnetism is a  six-vector field, not a scalar field, and hence any twists will change the local properties of the orientable rope. This is one of the reasons why John W and I use a strip to model the electron in our ’97 paper.
Models are a first step, and are at the level of the Bohr atom. Nice but descepive. A model at the level of the Schroedinger atom is at leqast required to say what is what, really. Proper theory is a must.
So I hope this frees you of some worries…
Best, 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: David Mathes [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: donderdag 28 mei 2015 6:28
To: Mark, Martin van der; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations

Mark

Perhaps I've been living in California too long for while I am painfully aware of invariance in many ways, I take a Monte Carlo analysis approach looking at "what if" scenarios in an attempt to falsify the invariance. Although variations on the theme of infinite series provide a fair amount of insight at least for small perturbations, I believe that science cannot advance significantly without looking for breakthroughs beyond constants to variables and the foundational assumption of invariance. It's a fine line of investigation bordering on "not even wrong." So there needs to be some reasoning and a bit of a reach but not necessarily to the level of String theory.

 If this variable or variance is permitted, how then could this work?

Before we get too tied up in knot theories, there is the need to go through the PBE models. I find it curious that in some models there is only positive or negative acceleration to the photon/quanta.

Topologically, the ring torus models are of interest but fail in favor of a horn or spindle torus model. The spindle torus model can be reduced to a line torus where the 3D spindle is reduces to a 1D line. The difficulty is that most torus models so far have been 3D. While I have seen only the mathematical 4D torus, I haven't seen any electron model described as such so far. A 5D phase-space solution (General Relativity + 1D phase space) can be reduced to 4 vector. In both the 4D and 5D models, the potential issues of coherent states, asymptotic freedom, and other anomalies become a challenge. I'm still looking at Glauber states in the PBE models.

One assumption that I make - which I admit may be wrong -  is that any charged particle has an exclusive volume. That is, a negatively charge quark cannot occupy the volume defined by the electron. If the electron absorbs the quark, it's not clear what the sum would be since even the absorption may be partial. Mass would change at least transiently; does electric charge change also even if only for a brief moment?  Or could the quark absorption by the electron charge be maintained by simply increasing the magnitude of the E field as in phat photons, the B-field as a separate force, or both.

There may be partial charge absorption which would challenge at least charge conservation. The exclusion zone between dissimilar charge particles approach may fall apart for +2/3 charge but not for +1/3 charge or less (-1/3 and -2/3). Published theories on 1/5th and 1/7th charge would also need to be reviewed.

Then there are weak interactions between photon and electron where the electric field penetrates the electron radius as a part of wavelet.

String theory is a big reach. Given that the LHC is having difficulties with establishing any sign of SUSY and string theory cannot be experimentally verified in the foreseeable future, the focus remains on the nearest solid ground which includes for better or worse, elementary particles with attendant CPT violations, and quantum field theory, both of which have renormalization issues.

So I'm looking forward to seeing the various papers.

Best Regards,

David

________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations

David,
This paper is philosophical, with mathematics to support the line if thought. It shows why, based on energy balance and total mass, there cannot be any independent stabile structures smaller than the proton. String theory and planck-scale physics are a likely waste of time.
Another paper will deal with the complete theory of electromagnetic knots and quantum mechanics, it is now half finished. I may have explicit solutions to show at the conference in august.
John W and I also have a very nice paper on division in the space-time algebra and invariants that still needs some revision, but I will complete that too.
Regards, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 27 mei 2015 om 19:42 heeft David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:

Martin

"... a light speed knot of energy" That phrase has a nice ring to it.

I look forward to your paper. Does the paper address the topological construction of the light speed energy (LSE) knot? If the knot can be desribed parametrically, even better!

David

________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations

Hi David,
You have said the word: scalability!
Very important indeed.

Paper [9570-53], SPIE Optics + Photonic, San Diego, 9-13 August 2015

On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces


Martin B. van der Mark*
Philips Research Europe, WB-21, HTC 34, 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Abstract
From super clusters of galaxies down to the quarks in the proton, at all length scales the structure of matter is the result of a balance of forces. In this paper we show that with decreasing size there is an increase of the fraction of kinetic and binding energy with respect to the total energy. Smaller sizes require stronger forces which represent more of the energy available. The smallest possible size of granularity is found where the internal and total energy become comparable, which occurs at the size of the proton. We infer that the proton is the smallest stable particle with structure, being a light speed knot of energy.
The paper is virtually finished and 15 pages long.
So we will be able to discuss and enjoy this point extensively.
Best 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: woensdag 27 mei 2015 7:19
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations

Richard

The conjecture is that the parametric equations for photon-based electrons can be used as the basis to describe other particles and extended to all Standard Model particles.  This mathematical physics approach proposes a parameter-based topology that may be useful as a tool in extending the Standard Model and perhaps explaining CPT violations. However, group theory and in particular Lie groups at least to the form of U(1)XSU(2)X SU(3) is related to the topological circulating photon/quanta models. (PBE).

Now, I am quite familiar with your parametric sets of equations which come in three types: Newtonian, Relativistic and Transluminal sets. In this paper a roadmap is laid out for exploring a parametric topological description of each elementary particle. Each parameter within the equations can be varied.

While some may perceive this as a quest for the smallest particle or the ultimate "atom" with such questions as what's inside the electron, what's inside the photon and what's inside the quanta, such an approach only addresses one dimension common ignored, scalability.

In any electron model theory, nature has thrown fields into the mix, something not easily defined in the Standard Model. Perhaps a topologcal view might provide insights to combining Quantum Field Theory
with the Standard Model.


Best

David



________________________________
From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations

David,
   And of course Chip has a double-looped photon model of the electron, composed of a charged photon.
      Richard


On May 26, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:

David,
  see your referenced quote.

  In the present company, Vivian proposes a double-looped electron which is charged, confined and contained (is there a difference?) and whose radius falls as 1/gamma.  John W and Martin proposed (1997) a double-looped photon model of the electron where the photon is uncharged (the effective electron’s charged is at the center of their model of a resting electron) and the energy of a moving electron falls off as 1/gamma. I propose a  generic double-looped charged photon that forms an electron where the trajectory of the moving electron falls off as 1/ gamma^2, but whose photon radius from its trajectory may depend on the specific model of the photon and for the TEQ model of the photon falls off as 1/gamma, which dominates 1/gamma^2 at high electron velocities. Is this the current batch of electron theories you are referring to or are there others on your list? Only Vivian’s and my double-looping photon's are charged in this list. (I know of other related models, like Hestenes' zitter model (though he doesn’t identify the helical light-speed charge in his electron model with a photon, and Rivas’s model, which is similar to that of Hestenes — it is also not a double-loop charged photon model. Oliver Consa in Spain has a 2014 article “A helical model of the electron” at   http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0203<http://vixra.org/pdf/1501.0028v1.pdf> which is a double-loop photon model (charged as I remember) which references the Williamson- van der Mark paper. An article by Grahame Blackwell on the closed-loop particle formation by photon is at http://www.transfinitemind.com/cosmicasymmetry.htm . I’m not sure if his circulating photon is charged or not. Also I’m not sure where John M’s electron model fits into this picture.

   You are assuming (below) that the photon is massless or has a perhaps very small mass. You are referring to the commonly known photon. But a charged photon would not necessarily be massless. In my model, the charged photon modeling an electron has the rest mass of the electron.

    Richard
David: 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.
On May 26, 2015, at 5:05 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bmartin.van.der.mark>=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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 Fe) and the gravitational force (designated Fg) 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.

________________________________



<Mass and the Coulomb potential e_p short4.pdf>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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>


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150528/9162bc7e/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list