From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Fri Sep 4 06:33:45 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:33:45 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers Message-ID: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of "stuff" and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 07:14:20 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:14:20 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <0C51E652-DE19-4CF4-ABBE-46E2982226BE@gmail.com> Hello, The same for my work at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/publications . I also recommend placing your papers at academia.edu such as https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier/Papers . Richard > On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Mark, Martin van der wrote: > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces > Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields > Very 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 > > > 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 > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 07:32:07 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:32:07 -0400 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <0C51E652-DE19-4CF4-ABBE-46E2982226BE@gmail.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <0C51E652-DE19-4CF4-ABBE-46E2982226BE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Richard, Does not posting papers on academia.edu violate copyright? Andrew On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > Hello, > The same for my work at > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/publications . I > also recommend placing your papers at academia.edu such as > https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier/Papers . > Richard > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Mark, Martin van der < > martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > - On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces > - Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current > from topological EM fields > > Very 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 > > > ------------------------------ > 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 > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at macken.com Fri Sep 4 09:40:19 2015 From: john at macken.com (John Macken) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:40:19 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article "Light Is Heavy" to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of "stuff" and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Fri Sep 4 10:14:53 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:14:53 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> Message-ID: <06bca6c7a8094f30aaee01925ddcb5a9@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Dear John M, Thank you for your encouragement. I thought I had done what you suggest already, but apparently that is only true in my own mind. So I will have a look at it again, it has been 15 years since I wrote it. The fact that I feel that I understand the situation is of little importance. Indeed, I must make the argument compelling enough to make other people wanting to see it. I assume you have noticed that the paper appeared on arXiv before the end of August, as promised. Thank you for the sharing your thoughts, Very 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 John Macken Sent: vrijdag 4 september 2015 18:40 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article "Light Is Heavy" to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of "stuff" and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Sat Sep 5 00:44:34 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 07:44:34 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <06bca6c7a8094f30aaee01925ddcb5a9@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com>, <06bca6c7a8094f30aaee01925ddcb5a9@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024B8BD4@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Will Do, Just getting the place sorted, watered, picked and vacuumed. On the coffee. Not got into loft yet, but am ready for it. Should leave in hour or so - meaning will be with you about midday. Love from John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:14 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John M, Thank you for your encouragement. I thought I had done what you suggest already, but apparently that is only true in my own mind. So I will have a look at it again, it has been 15 years since I wrote it. The fact that I feel that I understand the situation is of little importance. Indeed, I must make the argument compelling enough to make other people wanting to see it. I assume you have noticed that the paper appeared on arXiv before the end of August, as promised. Thank you for the sharing your thoughts, Very 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 John Macken Sent: vrijdag 4 september 2015 18:40 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Sat Sep 5 07:42:13 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 07:42:13 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <0C51E652-DE19-4CF4-ABBE-46E2982226BE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, I attached the required SPIE copyright notice (below) to my articles. When I get the final official articles from SPIE with the complete citations I will post them. "Copyright (2015) Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. One print or electronic copy may be made for personal use only. Systematic reproduction and distribution, duplication of any material in this paper for a fee or for commercial purposes, or modification of the content of the paper are prohibited.? Richard > On Sep 4, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > Does not posting papers on academia.edu violate copyright? > > Andrew > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Richard Gauthier > wrote: > Hello, > The same for my work at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/publications . I also recommend placing your papers at academia.edu such as https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier/Papers . > Richard > >> On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Mark, Martin van der > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >> In particular you will find the most recent work: >> >> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >> Very 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 >> >> >> 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 >> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mules333 at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 02:59:37 2015 From: mules333 at gmail.com (Andrew Meulenberg) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 05:59:37 -0400 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <0C51E652-DE19-4CF4-ABBE-46E2982226BE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Richard, I read this copyright notice as blocking the papers from being posted on academia.edu or Researchgate. However, I think that it is ok to submit them to small working groups like this one. If you, or others, have more complete information, I would be interested. Andrew ______________________________- On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > Hi Andrew, > I attached the required SPIE copyright notice (below) to my articles. > When I get the final official articles from SPIE with the complete > citations I will post them. > > "Copyright (2015) Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. One > print or electronic copy may be made for personal use only. Systematic > reproduction and distribution, duplication of any material in this paper > for a fee or for commercial purposes, or modification of the content of the > paper are prohibited.? > > Richard > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > Does not posting papers on academia.edu violate copyright? > > Andrew > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Richard Gauthier > wrote: > >> Hello, >> The same for my work at >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/publications . I >> also recommend placing your papers at academia.edu such as >> https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier/Papers . >> Richard >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 05:25:17 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 07:25:17 -0500 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <047101d0e27f$4737af20$d5a70d60$@gmail.com> <048301d0e291$7106c9f0$53145dd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <040401d0e89f$1eb2c1e0$5c1845a0$@gmail.com> Hi Andrew Wanted to get back to you earlier, but responsibilities got in the way. One thing I would like to point out about light reflecting from light is the weird set of circumstances one would create with a standing wave. The energy density in a standing wave would be significantly stronger near the source, and significantly weaker near the end, for a sufficiently long standing wave, if light reflects from light. This is because there would be a long string of reflectors, instead of just the one at the end. And once a standing wave of sufficient length was established, its decay time would be quite long, when compared to the decay time if light does not reflect from light. Now we do not see these two behaviors in standing waves. Instead we see the energy density to be what we would expect if light only reflects from the mirror at the end, and we do not see longer than expected decay times when the source is removed. The decay time and energy density are exactly what they would be if light does not reflect from light. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc: robert hudgins Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip and Chandra, I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM Light from Light reflection and my comments on it in the email. Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? Andrew _________________________________--- On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Chandra I agree completely. My simulations also produce the results your student obtained. No reflections occur when waves cross. NIW is quite real and understandable. Maybe I did not express that point well enough in my email to Robert with graphics. The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves passing through each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any reflection, when waves pass through each other. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 12:47 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Chip A. and Bob H.: Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi Robert Hudgins Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. Here are the results of some of those simulations: Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. Chip From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM To: chipakins at gmail.com ; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph Penland >; Andrew meulenberg > Subject: Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. Bob _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 5451 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 5609 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6441 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 09:48:51 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:48:51 -0700 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <047101d0e27f$4737af20$d5a70d60$@gmail.com> <048301d0e291$7106c9f0$53145dd0$@gmail.com> <04e701d0e324$2efd3ba0$8cf7b2e0$@gmail.com> <000a01d0e36a$24994f50$6dcbedf0$@gmail.com> <, > <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024B87AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006001d0e3df$d15f24b0$741d6e10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Chandra, Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration. Richard > On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote: > > Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. > > Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. > > However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! > > We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants! > > People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years! > > One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other. > > How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions! > > Sincerely, > Chandra. > ? <> > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > Hi all, > Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? > Richard > > On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: > > Hi John W. Andrew, and David > > > > John W. and David > > It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. > > We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell?s equations. > > We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell. > > So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space. > > It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light. > > So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems. > > When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. > > While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. > > > > Andrew > > The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. > > Chip > > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Williamson > Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > Cc: Joakim Pettersson >; Nick Bailey >; Manohar . >; Ariane Mandray > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > Dear All, > > I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. > > This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! > > The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! > > Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. > > Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. > > Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? > > What is going on? > > So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed. > > This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. > > Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this. > > HOW? > > One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum > Ok ? but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections. > > No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields. > > Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about. > > For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. > > Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! > > If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more. > > Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > Dear Chip, > > You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. > > On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). > > It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. > > I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added. > > It is worth thinking about. > > Andrew > _______________________________ > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: > Dear Andrew > > > > Then if you set up this experiment. > > > > > > And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity. > > > > But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. > > > > If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. > > > > Chip > > > > > > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg > Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > > Cc: Mary Fletcher >; robert hudgins > > > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > Dear Chip, > > Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below. > > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > > > There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur. > > > > Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. > > The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. > For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. > Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. > Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling > Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning > To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: > > it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; > the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. > There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. > > > > But there exists another method to test for reflection: > > > > If we start with this configuration? > > > > And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below? > > > > > > But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments. > > So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? > > > > Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future. > > From your next email, you state: > > Hi Andrew > > > > Let me rephrase my argument. > > > > First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves propagate. > > Correct > > > > Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for transmission. > > Correct > > > > And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. > > Correct > > > > However, we can also say: > > First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the interaction. > > > > > > Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted components. > > > > However, we can also say: > > Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components. > > > > So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. > > If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers. > > > > In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." > > > > First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. > > The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. > I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. > Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue. > It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. > Andrew > _______________________ > > > > Chip > > > > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > > Cc: robert hudgins > > > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Dear Chip and Chandra, > > I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: > > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM > > Light from Light reflection > > and my comments on it in the email. > > Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. > > Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: > > "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." > > The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): > > "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." > > I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. > > For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics ) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics ) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? > > Andrew > > _________________________________--- > > > > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Chip A. and Bob H.: > > > > Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. > > > > Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. > > > > Chandra. <> > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Chip Akins > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM > To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Hi Robert Hudgins > > > > Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. > > > > So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. > > > > Here are the results of some of those simulations: > > > > Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. > > Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. > > > > So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. > > > > > > Chip > > > > > > From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com ] > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM > To: chipakins at gmail.com ; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph Penland >; Andrew meulenberg > > Subject: Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Dear Chip, > > To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. > > What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: > > The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. > > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 > > Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. > > > Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. > > > For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. > > The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. > > We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. > > > Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) > [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? > > Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. > > Bob > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu Mon Sep 7 12:46:56 2015 From: chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu (Roychoudhuri, Chandra) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:46:56 +0000 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <047101d0e27f$4737af20$d5a70d60$@gmail.com> <048301d0e291$7106c9f0$53145dd0$@gmail.com> <04e701d0e324$2efd3ba0$8cf7b2e0$@gmail.com> <000a01d0e36a$24994f50$6dcbedf0$@gmail.com> <, > <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024B87AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006001d0e3df$d15f24b0$741d6e10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American "Fifth Amendment"! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why? 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this "process-seeking" mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the "single photon interference" is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already "riding high" for demonstrating "single photon interference" through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture. 2. "Ether", Indian "Brahmha" and my "CTF": While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become "Indian" in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a "Complex Tension Field" (CTF) emerged just as "ether" concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton's time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970's. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same "CTF", without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the "evidence based" science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E and IPM-E. 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an "Uncertainty Principle", albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of "ether" scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration. Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants! People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years! One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the "alpha" with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other. How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the "available" EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi all, Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron's charge -e, the photon's speed c (and possibly the electron's internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can't get alpha from Maxwell's equations, can we? Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John W. Andrew, and David John W. and David It is my belief that Maxwell's equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell's equations. We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell. So I see Chandra's CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell's equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space. It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light. So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the "spin mode" of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this "spin mode". So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems. When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology. For Martin's hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. Andrew The beam splitter will not "destroy" the standing wave. It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Cc: Joakim Pettersson >; Nick Bailey >; Manohar . >; Ariane Mandray > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear All, I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? What is going on? So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed. This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this. HOW? One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum Ok ... but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections. No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields. Now this could be Chandra's CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about. For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I've suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more. Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added. It is worth thinking about. Andrew _______________________________ On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Dear Andrew Then if you set up this experiment. And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity. But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Mary Fletcher >; robert hudgins > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below. On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Andrew There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur. Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. 1. The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. 2. For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. 3. Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. 4. Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling 5. Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: 1. it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; 2. the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. 3. There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. But there exists another method to test for reflection: If we start with this configuration... And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below... But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments. So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future. >From your next email, you state: Hi Andrew Let me rephrase my argument. First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves propagate. Correct Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for transmission. Correct And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. Correct However, we can also say: First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the interaction. Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted components. However, we can also say: Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components. So for me, those findings constitute sufficient "proof". If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers. In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. 1. The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. 2. I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue. It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. Andrew _______________________ Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: robert hudgins > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip and Chandra, I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM Light from Light reflection and my comments on it in the email. Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? Andrew _________________________________--- To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Chip A. and Bob H.: Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. Of course, it does not show "reflection" of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in "single photon interference", sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of "single photon interference", defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi Robert Hudgins Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an "out-of-the-box" imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. Here are the results of some of those simulations: Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. Chip From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph Penland >; Andrew meulenberg > Subject: Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., "Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves," Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. "Mechanism of wave interaction during interference," SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. Bob _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 295901 bytes Desc: 1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 10:52:11 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <047101d0e27f$4737af20$d5a70d60$@gmail.com> <048301d0e291$7106c9f0$53145dd0$@gmail.com> <04e701d0e324$2efd3ba0$8cf7b2e0$@gmail.com> <000a01d0e36a$24994f50$6dcbedf0$@gmail.com> <, > <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024B87AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006001d0e3df$d15f24b0$741d6e10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com> Hello Chandra, Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter ?all the way down?. Richard > On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote: > > Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why? > 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture. > 2. ?Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?: While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same ?CTF?, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E and IPM-E. > 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! > Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! > > Sincerely, > Chandra. > ? <> > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > Hello Chandra, > Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration. > Richard > > On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: > > Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. > > Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. > > However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! > > We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants! > > People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years! > > One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other. > > How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions! > > Sincerely, > Chandra. > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > Hi all, > Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? > Richard > > On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: > > Hi John W. Andrew, and David > > > > John W. and David > > It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. > > We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell?s equations. > > We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell. > > So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space. > > It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light. > > So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems. > > When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. > > While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. > > > > Andrew > > The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. > > Chip > > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of John Williamson > Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > Cc: Joakim Pettersson >; Nick Bailey >; Manohar . >; Ariane Mandray > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > Dear All, > > I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. > > This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! > > The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! > > Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. > > Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. > > Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? > > What is going on? > > So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed. > > This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. > > Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this. > > HOW? > > One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum > Ok ? but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections. > > No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields. > > Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about. > > For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. > > Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! > > If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more. > > Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > Dear Chip, > > You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. > > On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). > > It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. > > I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added. > > It is worth thinking about. > > Andrew > _______________________________ > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: > Dear Andrew > > > > Then if you set up this experiment. > > > > > > And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity. > > > > But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. > > > > If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. > > > > Chip > > > > > > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg > Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > > Cc: Mary Fletcher >; robert hudgins > > > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > Dear Chip, > > Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below. > > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > > > There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur. > > > > Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. > > The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. > For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. > Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. > Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling > Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning > To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: > > it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; > the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. > There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. > > > > But there exists another method to test for reflection: > > > > If we start with this configuration? > > > > And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below? > > > > > > But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments. > > So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? > > > > Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future. > > From your next email, you state: > > Hi Andrew > > > > Let me rephrase my argument. > > > > First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves propagate. > > Correct > > > > Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for transmission. > > Correct > > > > And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. > > Correct > > > > However, we can also say: > > First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the interaction. > > > > > > Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted components. > > > > However, we can also say: > > Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components. > > > > So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. > > If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers. > > > > In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." > > > > First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. > > The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. > I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. > Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue. > It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. > Andrew > _______________________ > > > > Chip > > > > > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > > Cc: robert hudgins > > > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Dear Chip and Chandra, > > I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: > > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM > > Light from Light reflection > > and my comments on it in the email. > > Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. > > Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: > > "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." > > The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): > > "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." > > I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. > > For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics ) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics ) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? > > Andrew > > _________________________________--- > > > > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Chip A. and Bob H.: > > > > Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. > > > > Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. > > > > Chandra. <> > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Chip Akins > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM > To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Hi Robert Hudgins > > > > Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. > > > > So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. > > > > Here are the results of some of those simulations: > > > > Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. > > Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. > > > > So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. > > > > > > Chip > > > > > > From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com ] > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM > To: chipakins at gmail.com ; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph Penland >; Andrew meulenberg > > Subject: Verification of Light Interactions > > > > Dear Chip, > > To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. > > What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: > > The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. > > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 > > Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. > > > Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. > > > For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. > > The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. > > We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. > > > Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) > [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? > > Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. > > Bob > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu Tue Sep 8 12:35:04 2015 From: ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu (M.A.) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> Hi Richard, Interesting discussion. Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, and, I believe, only one language. Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting happens along (for part of) the way... Michael > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 > From: Richard Gauthier > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hello Chandra, > Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or > the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need > to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical > universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old > materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized > matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may > satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But > this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet > to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter > ?all the way down?. > Richard > >> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra >> wrote: >> >> Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and >> Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the >> American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of >> thinking; not Eastern. Why? >> 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely >> through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I >> found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not >> understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and >> the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, >> right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising >> and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes >> that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? >> mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, >> not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first >> interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was >> stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to >> demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics >> conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that >> Mande > l, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating > ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! > Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the > Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took > the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good > engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to > recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge > Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the > same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the > entire socio-econo-political culture. >> 2. ?Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?: While Indian cultural >> upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural >> behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the >> mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a >> ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt >> necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when >> I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my >> experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based >> waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do >> not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized >> that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate >> that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same >> ?CTF?, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of >> diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India >> ancient Hr > ishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long > meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably > failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average > Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend > coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the > Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to > average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to > learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add > iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) > over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling > Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data > (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the > interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature > imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E > and IPM-E. >> 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting >> emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature >> does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific >> belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time >> that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to >> behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep >> on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, >> sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we >> will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have >> already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! >> Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the >> biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are >> deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some >> form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this >> postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive >> logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human >> consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network >> (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. >> All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All >> biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All >> atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are >> on the path to validate that all particles are localized >> self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are >> perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that >> elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) >> of the CTF (self-looped oscill > ations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological > consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of > the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to > experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every > step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an > emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of > CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the > potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained > (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could > be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge > without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming > human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! >> >> Sincerely, >> Chandra. >> ? <> >> From: General >> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >> On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier >> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> Hello Chandra, >> Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with >> your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? >> scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name >> Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with >> the other four traditional fundamental material factors described >> in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid >> factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga >> philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors >> (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric >> factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are >> described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic >> mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness >> (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider >> this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged >> as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. >> The relationships of > mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored > scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter > could be part of this exploration. >> Richard >> >> On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra >> > >> wrote: >> >> Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related >> discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective >> discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. >> >> Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to >> elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms >> have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we >> humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. >> >> However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have >> captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect >> model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more >> successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will >> stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! >> >> We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working >> theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of >> postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which >> allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same >> Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse >> fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new >> lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering >> by starting with the genes of the two plants! >> >> People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a >> lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund >> for over 90 years! >> >> One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the >> light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an >> iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM >> excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as >> classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough >> to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on >> between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were >> forcefully grazed against each other. >> >> How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical >> kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical >> frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM >> excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM >> interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and >> cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are >> accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron >> (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and >> annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of >> material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators >> and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as >> excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds >> all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. >> That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are >> not illusions! >> >> Sincerely, >> Chandra. >> >> From: General >> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> ] >> On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier >> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> Hi all, >> Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure >> constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is >> important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the >> electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the >> electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the >> electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? >> Richard >> >> On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins > > wrote: >> >> Hi John W. Andrew, and David >> >> >> >> John W. and David >> >> It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the >> observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. >> >> We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with >> light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the >> energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by >> something not described by Maxwell?s equations. >> >> We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of >> energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by >> Maxwell. >> >> So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of >> properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in >> order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, >> to energy propagating through space. >> >> It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is >> present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can >> apparently more easily react with light. >> >> So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of >> matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react >> with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult >> to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this >> ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, >> it seems. >> >> When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a >> new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to >> exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its >> reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. >> >> While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally >> different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John >> W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different >> perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce >> the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to >> detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, >> using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in >> the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much >> as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I >> suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change >> in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. >> >> Chip >> >> >> >> From: General >> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> ] >> On Behalf Of John Williamson >> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> > > >> Cc: Joakim Pettersson > >; Nick Bailey > >; Manohar . >> >; Ariane >> Mandray > >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you >> are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try >> to communicate that. >> >> This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind >> at rest: it does! >> >> The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different >> perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. >> Funny that! >> >> Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW >> of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is >> linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for >> interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different >> thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads >> to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : >> interference is not interference. >> >> Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production >> threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by >> known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with >> themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. >> Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in >> light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with >> experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. >> >> Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from >> (the same stuff as) light"? >> >> What is going on? >> >> So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental >> properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. >> Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may >> annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and >> destroyed. >> >> This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word >> above) this is life or death for light. >> >> Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to >> describe this. >> >> HOW? >> >> One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" >> diagram. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum >> >> Ok ? but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, >> and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This >> is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it >> does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you >> get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is >> nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves >> with miniscule corrections. >> >> No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. >> Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the >> pure fields. >> >> Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell >> along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be >> something else. That is what all this is about. >> >> For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra >> degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the >> fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) >> and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. >> >> Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! >> >> If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of >> experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the >> papers. We should think of more. >> >> Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> Dear Chip, >> >> You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't >> work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' >> the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the >> whole standing wave collapses. >> >> On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis >> incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will >> reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). >> >> It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the >> figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at >> sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. >> >> I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm >> not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned >> mirror is added. >> >> It is worth thinking about. >> >> Andrew >> _______________________________ >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins > > wrote: >> Dear Andrew >> >> >> >> Then if you set up this experiment. >> >> >> >> >> >> And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams >> of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom >> detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register >> about 50% of the beam intensity. >> >> >> >> But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure >> significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom >> detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. >> >> >> >> If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change >> in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. >> >> >> >> Chip >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins >> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> ] On Behalf Of >> Andrew Meulenberg >> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> > >; Andrew Meulenberg >> > >> Cc: Mary Fletcher > >; robert hudgins > > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> >> Dear Chip, >> >> Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You >> have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or >> emphasize our language. See comments below. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins > > wrote: >> >> Hi Andrew >> >> >> >> There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not >> occur. >> >> >> >> Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes >> occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all >> respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute >> and empty point. >> >> The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole >> wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. >> This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible >> for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in >> the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave >> (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. >> For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with >> specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases >> differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical >> components occurs. >> Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common >> source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by >> reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since >> reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or >> divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. >> Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think >> about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical >> mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by >> assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg >> reflector might be similar to this concept. >> Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling >> Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning >> To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: >> >> it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; >> the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection >> angle. >> There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams >> visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and >> directions are identical. >> >> >> >> But there exists another method to test for reflection: >> >> >> >> If we start with this configuration? >> >> >> >> And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as >> shown in red below? >> >> >> >> >> >> But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in >> experiments. >> >> So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no >> evidence? >> >> >> >> Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the >> bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not >> shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles >> the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the >> directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point >> in the future. >> >> From your next email, you state: >> >> Hi Andrew >> >> >> >> Let me rephrase my argument. >> >> >> >> First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves >> propagate. >> >> Correct >> >> >> >> Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected >> interference pattern for transmission. >> >> Correct >> >> >> >> And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the >> two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. >> >> Correct >> >> >> >> However, we can also say: >> >> First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves >> reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the >> expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. >> And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the >> two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the >> interaction. >> >> >> >> >> >> Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have >> to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, >> and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted >> components. >> >> >> >> However, we can also say: >> >> Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to >> exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 >> degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them >> from transmitted components. >> >> >> >> So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. >> >> If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still >> consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and >> Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional >> physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our >> papers. >> >> >> >> In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, >> and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must >> mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." >> >> >> >> First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional >> detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe >> that there are 2 errors. >> >> The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not >> the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. >> I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by >> the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather >> than 'up' as shown. >> Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work >> together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model >> then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that >> we provided would resolve the issue. >> It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same >> results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important >> information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and >> their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. >> Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. >> Andrew >> _______________________ >> >> >> >> Chip >> >> >> >> >> >> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins >> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> ] On Behalf Of >> Andrew Meulenberg >> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> > >; Andrew Meulenberg >> > >> Cc: robert hudgins > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> >> >> Dear Chip and Chandra, >> >> I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. >> Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both >> Dowling's paper attached to my email of: >> >> Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM >> >> Light from Light reflection >> >> and my comments on it in the email. >> >> Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. >> Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much >> better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations >> agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second >> 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and >> no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves >> (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I >> will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, >> the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure >> 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency >> envelope of the incident waves. >> >> Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips >> comment, is: >> >> "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the >> simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the >> waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis >> for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each >> other." >> >> The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine >> in the email): >> >> "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable >> to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." >> >> I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his >> simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than >> reflection of identical waves. >> >> For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics >> ) and >> Dirac statistics >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics >> ) for >> non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, >> the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the >> observed interference region demands interference between two waves? >> >> Andrew >> >> _________________________________--- >> >> >> >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> > > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> >> >> Chip A. and Bob H.: >> >> >> >> Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which >> I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary >> pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. >> >> >> >> Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we >> use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as >> simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any >> wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single >> photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant >> detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out >> the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate >> energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is >> erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, >> defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The >> energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 >> cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical >> capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. >> >> >> >> Chandra. <> >> From: General >> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> ] >> On Behalf Of Chip Akins >> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM >> To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> >> >> >> Hi Robert Hudgins >> >> >> >> Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? >> imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. >> >> >> >> So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference >> patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. >> The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course >> because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves >> passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. >> >> >> >> Here are the results of some of those simulations: >> >> >> >> Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident >> at 45 degrees. >> >> Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree >> phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference >> pattern and no reflection. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able >> to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this >> is done with no reflection of waves. >> >> >> >> So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect >> off one another. >> >> >> >> >> >> Chip >> >> >> >> >> >> From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com >> ] >> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM >> To: chipakins at gmail.com ; >> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> >> Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph >> Penland >; Andrew >> meulenberg > >> Subject: Verification of Light Interactions >> >> >> >> Dear Chip, >> >> To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, >> non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally >> confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been >> thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. >> The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our >> results felt refreshing. >> >> What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the >> problem of short wavelength intervals: >> >> The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. >> Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear >> visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto >> Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified >> classroom demonstration procedure was published. >> >> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 >> >> >> Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a >> workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms >> are trapped between the oscillating potentials. >> >> >> Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 >> Lloyd's mirror experiment. >> >> >> For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was >> reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was >> examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex >> mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this >> experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for >> one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that >> the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like >> reflection zones. >> >> The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It >> requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. >> The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam >> is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) >> surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging >> beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point >> where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two >> clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, >> unambiguous results. >> >> We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light >> interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the >> beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference >> patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after >> the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a >> smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" >> light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. >> >> >> Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated >> momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 >> (2011) >> [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of >> wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The >> Nature of Light: What are Photons? >> >> Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com >> >> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >> "> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >> >> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >> "> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >> >> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >> "> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. >> Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >> >> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >> "> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > If you would like to change your settings for the Nature of Light and > Particles General Discussion List, please visit > http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/ > listinfo/general-natureoflightandparticles.org > > ------------------------------ > > End of General Digest, Vol 8, Issue 6 > ************************************* > From chipakins at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 14:09:53 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:09:53 -0500 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com> References: <047101d0e27f$4737af20$d5a70d60$@gmail.com> <048301d0e291$7106c9f0$53145dd0$@gmail.com> <04e701d0e324$2efd3ba0$8cf7b2e0$@gmail.com> <000a01d0e36a$24994f50$6dcbedf0$@gmail.com> <, > <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024B87AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006001d0e3df$d15f24b0$741d6e10$@gmail.com> <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004c01d0ea7a$b89cd520$29d67f60$@gmail.com> Hi Richard and Chandra Richard it seems that space is composed of smaller stuff. We can observe transverse waves traveling through space. When we study materials we find transverse waves in elastic solids. Elastic solids have ?nodes? (atoms or molecules), which have both attractive and repulsive forces between them. The simplest form, atomic binding, achieves both attractive and repulsive forces due to the structure of the atom. With positive charges in the nucleus and negative charges in the electron cloud. For metals the equilibrium distance is on the order of 100 to 300 pm in order to balance the forces. For space to display the properties of shear modulus, it seems it must also have nodes with both attractive and repulsive forces, and the equilibrium, the balance of forces, is at the scale of the Planck length. But this implies a structure which can cause these forces. (And these forces are probably more fundamental than electrostatic force, and not easily detectible by matter). We may be able to discover some of the details of this structure due to the properties of EM waves, and a better understanding of the nature of particles. But is seems that space is a bit more complex than we normally consider. And there is at least another layer of stuff smaller than subatomic scales. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles. org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter ?all the way down?. Richard On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why? 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture. 2. ?Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?: While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same ?CTF?, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E and IPM-E. 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand particles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration. Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra < chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote: Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants! People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years! One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other. How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand particles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi all, Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins < chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi John W. Andrew, and David John W. and David It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell?s equations. We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell. So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space. It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light. So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems. When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. Andrew The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. Chip From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o rg] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Cc: Joakim Pettersson < joakimbits at gmail.com>; Nick Bailey < nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Manohar . < manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Ariane Mandray < ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear All, I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? What is going on? So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed. This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this. HOW? One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum Ok but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections. No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields. Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about. For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more. Cheers, John W. _____ From: General [ general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticle s.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [ mules333 at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added. It is worth thinking about. Andrew _______________________________ On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins < chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Dear Andrew Then if you set up this experiment. And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity. But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> Cc: Mary Fletcher < marycfletcher at gmail.com>; robert hudgins < hudginswr at msn.com> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below. On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins < chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Andrew There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur. Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. 1. The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. 2. For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. 3. Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. 4. Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling 5. Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: 1. it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; 2. the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. 3. There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. But there exists another method to test for reflection: If we start with this configuration And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments. So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future. >From your next email, you state: Hi Andrew Let me rephrase my argument. First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves propagate. Correct Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for transmission. Correct And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. Correct However, we can also say: First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the interaction. Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted components. However, we can also say: Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components. So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers. In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. 1. The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. 2. I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue. It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. Andrew _______________________ Chip From: General [mailto: general-bounces+chipakins= gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Andrew Meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> Cc: robert hudgins < hudginswr at msn.com> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip and Chandra, I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM Light from Light reflection and my comments on it in the email. Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac statistics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? Andrew _________________________________--- To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Chip A. and Bob H.: Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. Chandra. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightand particles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi Robert Hudgins Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. Here are the results of some of those simulations: Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. Chip From: robert hudgins [ mailto:hudginswr at msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: robert hudgins < hudginswr at msn.com>; Ralph Penland < rpenland at gmail.com>; Andrew meulenberg < mules333 at gmail.com> Subject: Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. Bob _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Tue Sep 8 14:26:15 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:26:15 +0000 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <004c01d0ea7a$b89cd520$29d67f60$@gmail.com> References: <047101d0e27f$4737af20$d5a70d60$@gmail.com> <048301d0e291$7106c9f0$53145dd0$@gmail.com> <04e701d0e324$2efd3ba0$8cf7b2e0$@gmail.com> <000a01d0e36a$24994f50$6dcbedf0$@gmail.com> <, > <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024B87AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> <006001d0e3df$d15f24b0$741d6e10$@gmail.com> <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com> <004c01d0ea7a$b89cd520$29d67f60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20b89ff6e2c3442a8dd7ed9f483db79f@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi Chip, Good explanation and a plausible speculation that space is like that at the Planck scale. However, with the nature of stuff paper in mind...according to this, there would be no physics possible at the Planck scale. If space with electromagnetism really can take a topological form, than there is no problem: electromagnetism and space-time blend into some kind of continuous soup that should have the properties you are looking for. The theory will tell... Very best regards, Martin PS. If you would put the world upside down as follows: write (t,x) where we have (A0,A) and vise versa, what happens? I do not know, but should! So I am proposing to see and interpret the 4-potential as 4-space and the other way around. Then... What do Maxwell's equations look like? What is waving and what is it waving in? 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 Chip Akins Sent: dinsdag 8 september 2015 23:10 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi Richard and Chandra Richard it seems that space is composed of smaller stuff. We can observe transverse waves traveling through space. When we study materials we find transverse waves in elastic solids. Elastic solids have "nodes" (atoms or molecules), which have both attractive and repulsive forces between them. The simplest form, atomic binding, achieves both attractive and repulsive forces due to the structure of the atom. With positive charges in the nucleus and negative charges in the electron cloud. For metals the equilibrium distance is on the order of 100 to 300 pm in order to balance the forces. For space to display the properties of shear modulus, it seems it must also have nodes with both attractive and repulsive forces, and the equilibrium, the balance of forces, is at the scale of the Planck length. But this implies a structure which can cause these forces. (And these forces are probably more fundamental than electrostatic force, and not easily detectible by matter). We may be able to discover some of the details of this structure due to the properties of EM waves, and a better understanding of the nature of particles. But is seems that space is a bit more complex than we normally consider. And there is at least another layer of stuff smaller than subatomic scales. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:52 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since that's how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter ("the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.") may satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It's unlikely to be composed of other matter "all the way down". Richard On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American "Fifth Amendment"! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why? 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this "process-seeking" mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the "single photon interference" is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already "riding high" for demonstrating "single photon interference" through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture. 2. "Ether", Indian "Brahmha" and my "CTF": While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become "Indian" in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a "Complex Tension Field" (CTF) emerged just as "ether" concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton's time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970's. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same "CTF", without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the "evidence based" science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E and IPM-E. 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an "Uncertainty Principle", albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of "ether" scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration. Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants! People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years! One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the "alpha" with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other. How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the "available" EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi all, Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron's charge -e, the photon's speed c (and possibly the electron's internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can't get alpha from Maxwell's equations, can we? Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John W. Andrew, and David John W. and David It is my belief that Maxwell's equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell's equations. We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell. So I see Chandra's CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell's equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space. It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light. So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the "spin mode" of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this "spin mode". So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems. When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology. For Martin's hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. Andrew The beam splitter will not "destroy" the standing wave. It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Cc: Joakim Pettersson >; Nick Bailey >; Manohar . >; Ariane Mandray > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear All, I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? What is going on? So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed. This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this. HOW? One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum Ok ... but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections. No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields. Now this could be Chandra's CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about. For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I've suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more. Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added. It is worth thinking about. Andrew _______________________________ On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Dear Andrew Then if you set up this experiment. And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity. But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Mary Fletcher >; robert hudgins > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below. On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Andrew There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur. Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. 1. The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. 2. For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. 3. Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. 4. Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling 5. Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: 1. it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; 2. the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. 3. There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. But there exists another method to test for reflection: If we start with this configuration... And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below... But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments. So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future. >From your next email, you state: Hi Andrew Let me rephrase my argument. First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves propagate. Correct Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for transmission. Correct And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. Correct However, we can also say: First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the interaction. Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted components. However, we can also say: Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components. So for me, those findings constitute sufficient "proof". If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers. In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. 1. The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. 2. I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue. It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. Andrew _______________________ Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: robert hudgins > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip and Chandra, I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM Light from Light reflection and my comments on it in the email. Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? Andrew _________________________________--- To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Chip A. and Bob H.: Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. Of course, it does not show "reflection" of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in "single photon interference", sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of "single photon interference", defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi Robert Hudgins Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an "out-of-the-box" imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. Here are the results of some of those simulations: Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. Chip From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph Penland >; Andrew meulenberg > Subject: Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., "Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves," Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. "Mechanism of wave interaction during interference," SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. Bob _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 15:57:08 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:57:08 -0700 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> References: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> Message-ID: > On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > Interesting discussion. > Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of > matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes > EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) > > I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is > essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have > expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. > within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included > time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, > and, I believe, only one language. > > Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is > infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a > continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists > itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial > conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that > something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. > > I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. > Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: > they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually > (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind > of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. > But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it > all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting > happens along (for part of) the way... > > > Michael > > > >> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 >> From: Richard Gauthier >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> >> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> Hello Chandra, >> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or >> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need >> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical >> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old >> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized >> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may >> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But >> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet >> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter >> ?all the way down?. >> Richard >> >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra >>> wrote: >>> >>> Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and >>> Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the >>> American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of >>> thinking; not Eastern. Why? >>> 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely >>> through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I >>> found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not >>> understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and >>> the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, >>> right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising >>> and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes >>> that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? >>> mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, >>> not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first >>> interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was >>> stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to >>> demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics >>> conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that >>> Mande >> l, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating >> ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! >> Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the >> Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took >> the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good >> engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to >> recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge >> Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the >> same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the >> entire socio-econo-political culture. >>> 2. ?Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?: While Indian cultural >>> upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural >>> behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the >>> mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a >>> ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt >>> necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when >>> I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my >>> experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based >>> waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do >>> not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized >>> that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate >>> that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same >>> ?CTF?, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of >>> diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India >>> ancient Hr >> ishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long >> meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably >> failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average >> Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend >> coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the >> Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to >> average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to >> learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add >> iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) >> over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling >> Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data >> (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the >> interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature >> imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E >> and IPM-E. >>> 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting >>> emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature >>> does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific >>> belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time >>> that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to >>> behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep >>> on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, >>> sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we >>> will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have >>> already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! >>> Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the >>> biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are >>> deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some >>> form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this >>> postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive >>> logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human >>> consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network >>> (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. >>> All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All >>> biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All >>> atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are >>> on the path to validate that all particles are localized >>> self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are >>> perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that >>> elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) >>> of the CTF (self-looped oscill >> ations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological >> consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of >> the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to >> experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every >> step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an >> emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of >> CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the >> potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained >> (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could >> be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge >> without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming >> human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Chandra. >>> ? <> >>> From: General >>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >>> On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier >>> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> Hello Chandra, >>> Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with >>> your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? >>> scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name >>> Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with >>> the other four traditional fundamental material factors described >>> in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid >>> factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga >>> philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors >>> (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric >>> factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are >>> described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic >>> mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness >>> (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider >>> this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged >>> as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. >>> The relationships of >> mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored >> scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter >> could be part of this exploration. >>> Richard >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related >>> discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective >>> discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. >>> >>> Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to >>> elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms >>> have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we >>> humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. >>> >>> However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have >>> captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect >>> model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more >>> successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will >>> stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! >>> >>> We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working >>> theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of >>> postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which >>> allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same >>> Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse >>> fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new >>> lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering >>> by starting with the genes of the two plants! >>> >>> People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a >>> lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund >>> for over 90 years! >>> >>> One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the >>> light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an >>> iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM >>> excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as >>> classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough >>> to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on >>> between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were >>> forcefully grazed against each other. >>> >>> How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical >>> kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical >>> frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM >>> excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM >>> interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and >>> cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are >>> accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron >>> (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and >>> annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of >>> material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators >>> and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as >>> excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds >>> all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. >>> That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are >>> not illusions! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Chandra. >>> >>> From: General >>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> ] >>> On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier >>> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> Hi all, >>> Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure >>> constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is >>> important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the >>> electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the >>> electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the >>> electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? >>> Richard >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi John W. Andrew, and David >>> >>> >>> >>> John W. and David >>> >>> It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the >>> observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. >>> >>> We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with >>> light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the >>> energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by >>> something not described by Maxwell?s equations. >>> >>> We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of >>> energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by >>> Maxwell. >>> >>> So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of >>> properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in >>> order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, >>> to energy propagating through space. >>> >>> It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is >>> present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can >>> apparently more easily react with light. >>> >>> So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of >>> matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react >>> with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult >>> to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this >>> ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, >>> it seems. >>> >>> When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a >>> new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to >>> exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its >>> reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. >>> >>> While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally >>> different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John >>> W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different >>> perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce >>> the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to >>> detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, >>> using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in >>> the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much >>> as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I >>> suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change >>> in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. >>> >>> Chip >>> >>> >>> >>> From: General >>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> ] >>> On Behalf Of John Williamson >>> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> >> > >>> Cc: Joakim Pettersson >> >; Nick Bailey >> >; Manohar . >>> >; Ariane >>> Mandray > >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you >>> are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try >>> to communicate that. >>> >>> This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind >>> at rest: it does! >>> >>> The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different >>> perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. >>> Funny that! >>> >>> Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW >>> of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is >>> linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for >>> interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different >>> thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads >>> to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : >>> interference is not interference. >>> >>> Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production >>> threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by >>> known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with >>> themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. >>> Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in >>> light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with >>> experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. >>> >>> Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from >>> (the same stuff as) light"? >>> >>> What is going on? >>> >>> So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental >>> properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. >>> Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may >>> annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and >>> destroyed. >>> >>> This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word >>> above) this is life or death for light. >>> >>> Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to >>> describe this. >>> >>> HOW? >>> >>> One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" >>> diagram. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum >>> >>> Ok ? but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, >>> and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This >>> is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it >>> does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you >>> get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is >>> nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves >>> with miniscule corrections. >>> >>> No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. >>> Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the >>> pure fields. >>> >>> Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell >>> along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be >>> something else. That is what all this is about. >>> >>> For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra >>> degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the >>> fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) >>> and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. >>> >>> Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! >>> >>> If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of >>> experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the >>> papers. We should think of more. >>> >>> Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> Dear Chip, >>> >>> You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't >>> work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' >>> the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the >>> whole standing wave collapses. >>> >>> On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis >>> incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will >>> reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). >>> >>> It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the >>> figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at >>> sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. >>> >>> I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm >>> not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned >>> mirror is added. >>> >>> It is worth thinking about. >>> >>> Andrew >>> _______________________________ >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins >> > wrote: >>> Dear Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> Then if you set up this experiment. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams >>> of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom >>> detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register >>> about 50% of the beam intensity. >>> >>> >>> >>> But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure >>> significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom >>> detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. >>> >>> >>> >>> If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change >>> in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chip >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins >>> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> ] On Behalf Of >>> Andrew Meulenberg >>> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> >> >; Andrew Meulenberg >>> > >>> Cc: Mary Fletcher >> >; robert hudgins >> > >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> >>> Dear Chip, >>> >>> Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You >>> have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or >>> emphasize our language. See comments below. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not >>> occur. >>> >>> >>> >>> Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes >>> occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all >>> respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute >>> and empty point. >>> >>> The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole >>> wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. >>> This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible >>> for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in >>> the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave >>> (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. >>> For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with >>> specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases >>> differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical >>> components occurs. >>> Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common >>> source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by >>> reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since >>> reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or >>> divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. >>> Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think >>> about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical >>> mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by >>> assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg >>> reflector might be similar to this concept. >>> Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling >>> Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning >>> To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: >>> >>> it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; >>> the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection >>> angle. >>> There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams >>> visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and >>> directions are identical. >>> >>> >>> >>> But there exists another method to test for reflection: >>> >>> >>> >>> If we start with this configuration? >>> >>> >>> >>> And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as >>> shown in red below? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in >>> experiments. >>> >>> So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no >>> evidence? >>> >>> >>> >>> Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the >>> bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not >>> shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles >>> the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the >>> directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point >>> in the future. >>> >>> From your next email, you state: >>> >>> Hi Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me rephrase my argument. >>> >>> >>> >>> First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves >>> propagate. >>> >>> Correct >>> >>> >>> >>> Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected >>> interference pattern for transmission. >>> >>> Correct >>> >>> >>> >>> And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the >>> two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. >>> >>> Correct >>> >>> >>> >>> However, we can also say: >>> >>> First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves >>> reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the >>> expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. >>> And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the >>> two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the >>> interaction. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have >>> to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, >>> and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted >>> components. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, we can also say: >>> >>> Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to >>> exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 >>> degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them >>> from transmitted components. >>> >>> >>> >>> So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. >>> >>> If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still >>> consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and >>> Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional >>> physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our >>> papers. >>> >>> >>> >>> In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, >>> and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must >>> mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." >>> >>> >>> >>> First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional >>> detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe >>> that there are 2 errors. >>> >>> The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not >>> the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. >>> I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by >>> the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather >>> than 'up' as shown. >>> Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work >>> together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model >>> then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that >>> we provided would resolve the issue. >>> It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same >>> results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important >>> information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and >>> their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. >>> Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. >>> Andrew >>> _______________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> Chip >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins >>> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> ] On Behalf Of >>> Andrew Meulenberg >>> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> >> >; Andrew Meulenberg >>> > >>> Cc: robert hudgins > >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Chip and Chandra, >>> >>> I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. >>> Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both >>> Dowling's paper attached to my email of: >>> >>> Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM >>> >>> Light from Light reflection >>> >>> and my comments on it in the email. >>> >>> Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. >>> Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much >>> better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations >>> agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second >>> 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and >>> no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves >>> (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I >>> will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, >>> the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure >>> 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency >>> envelope of the incident waves. >>> >>> Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips >>> comment, is: >>> >>> "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the >>> simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the >>> waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis >>> for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each >>> other." >>> >>> The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine >>> in the email): >>> >>> "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable >>> to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." >>> >>> I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his >>> simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than >>> reflection of identical waves. >>> >>> For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics >>> ) and >>> Dirac statistics >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics >>> ) for >>> non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, >>> the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the >>> observed interference region demands interference between two waves? >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> _________________________________--- >>> >>> >>> >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> >>> >>> Chip A. and Bob H.: >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which >>> I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary >>> pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we >>> use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as >>> simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any >>> wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single >>> photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant >>> detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out >>> the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate >>> energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is >>> erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, >>> defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The >>> energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 >>> cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical >>> capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chandra. <> >>> From: General >>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> ] >>> On Behalf Of Chip Akins >>> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM >>> To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Robert Hudgins >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? >>> imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. >>> >>> >>> >>> So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference >>> patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. >>> The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course >>> because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves >>> passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here are the results of some of those simulations: >>> >>> >>> >>> Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident >>> at 45 degrees. >>> >>> Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree >>> phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference >>> pattern and no reflection. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able >>> to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this >>> is done with no reflection of waves. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect >>> off one another. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chip >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com >>> ] >>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM >>> To: chipakins at gmail.com ; >>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> >>> Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph >>> Penland >; Andrew >>> meulenberg > >>> Subject: Verification of Light Interactions >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Chip, >>> >>> To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, >>> non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally >>> confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been >>> thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. >>> The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our >>> results felt refreshing. >>> >>> What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the >>> problem of short wavelength intervals: >>> >>> The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. >>> Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear >>> visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto >>> Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified >>> classroom demonstration procedure was published. >>> >>> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 >>> >>> >>> Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a >>> workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms >>> are trapped between the oscillating potentials. >>> >>> >>> Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 >>> Lloyd's mirror experiment. >>> >>> >>> For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was >>> reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was >>> examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex >>> mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this >>> experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for >>> one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that >>> the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like >>> reflection zones. >>> >>> The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It >>> requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. >>> The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam >>> is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) >>> surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging >>> beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point >>> where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two >>> clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, >>> unambiguous results. >>> >>> We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light >>> interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the >>> beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference >>> patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after >>> the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a >>> smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" >>> light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. >>> >>> >>> Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated >>> momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 >>> (2011) >>> [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of >>> wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The >>> Nature of Light: What are Photons? >>> >>> Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com >>> >>> >> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>> "> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>> >>> >> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>> "> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>> >>> >> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>> "> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. >>> Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>> >>> >> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>> "> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you would like to change your settings for the Nature of Light and >> Particles General Discussion List, please visit >> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/ >> listinfo/general-natureoflightandparticles.org >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of General Digest, Vol 8, Issue 6 >> ************************************* >> > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > From richgauthier at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 15:58:29 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:58:29 -0700 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> Message-ID: <8E1B6ACB-C737-4481-82DA-664343D6C057@gmail.com> Please ignore last email, I hit send by accident. Richard > On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > > > >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. wrote: >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> Interesting discussion. >> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of >> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes >> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) >> >> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is >> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have >> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. >> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included >> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, >> and, I believe, only one language. >> >> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is >> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a >> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists >> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial >> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that >> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. >> >> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. >> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: >> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually >> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind >> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. >> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it >> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting >> happens along (for part of) the way... >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 >>> From: Richard Gauthier >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> Hello Chandra, >>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or >>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need >>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical >>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old >>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized >>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may >>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But >>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet >>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter >>> ?all the way down?. >>> Richard >>> >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and >>>> Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the >>>> American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of >>>> thinking; not Eastern. Why? >>>> 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely >>>> through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I >>>> found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not >>>> understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and >>>> the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, >>>> right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising >>>> and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes >>>> that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? >>>> mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, >>>> not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first >>>> interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was >>>> stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to >>>> demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics >>>> conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that >>>> Mande >>> l, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating >>> ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! >>> Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the >>> Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took >>> the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good >>> engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to >>> recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge >>> Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the >>> same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the >>> entire socio-econo-political culture. >>>> 2. ?Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?: While Indian cultural >>>> upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural >>>> behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the >>>> mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a >>>> ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt >>>> necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when >>>> I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my >>>> experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based >>>> waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do >>>> not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized >>>> that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate >>>> that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same >>>> ?CTF?, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of >>>> diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India >>>> ancient Hr >>> ishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long >>> meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably >>> failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average >>> Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend >>> coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the >>> Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to >>> average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to >>> learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add >>> iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) >>> over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling >>> Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data >>> (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the >>> interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature >>> imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E >>> and IPM-E. >>>> 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting >>>> emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature >>>> does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific >>>> belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time >>>> that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to >>>> behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep >>>> on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, >>>> sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we >>>> will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have >>>> already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! >>>> Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the >>>> biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are >>>> deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some >>>> form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this >>>> postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive >>>> logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human >>>> consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network >>>> (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. >>>> All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All >>>> biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All >>>> atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are >>>> on the path to validate that all particles are localized >>>> self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are >>>> perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that >>>> elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) >>>> of the CTF (self-looped oscill >>> ations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological >>> consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of >>> the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to >>> experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every >>> step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an >>> emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of >>> CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the >>> potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained >>> (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could >>> be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge >>> without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming >>> human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Chandra. >>>> ? <> >>>> From: General >>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier >>>> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> Hello Chandra, >>>> Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with >>>> your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? >>>> scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name >>>> Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with >>>> the other four traditional fundamental material factors described >>>> in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid >>>> factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga >>>> philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors >>>> (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric >>>> factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are >>>> described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic >>>> mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness >>>> (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider >>>> this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged >>>> as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. >>>> The relationships of >>> mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored >>> scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter >>> could be part of this exploration. >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related >>>> discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective >>>> discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. >>>> >>>> Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to >>>> elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms >>>> have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we >>>> humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. >>>> >>>> However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have >>>> captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect >>>> model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more >>>> successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will >>>> stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! >>>> >>>> We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working >>>> theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of >>>> postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which >>>> allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same >>>> Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse >>>> fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new >>>> lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering >>>> by starting with the genes of the two plants! >>>> >>>> People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a >>>> lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund >>>> for over 90 years! >>>> >>>> One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the >>>> light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an >>>> iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM >>>> excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as >>>> classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough >>>> to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on >>>> between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were >>>> forcefully grazed against each other. >>>> >>>> How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical >>>> kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical >>>> frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM >>>> excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM >>>> interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and >>>> cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are >>>> accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron >>>> (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and >>>> annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of >>>> material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators >>>> and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as >>>> excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds >>>> all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. >>>> That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are >>>> not illusions! >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Chandra. >>>> >>>> From: General >>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier >>>> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure >>>> constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is >>>> important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the >>>> electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the >>>> electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the >>>> electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi John W. Andrew, and David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John W. and David >>>> >>>> It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the >>>> observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. >>>> >>>> We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with >>>> light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the >>>> energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by >>>> something not described by Maxwell?s equations. >>>> >>>> We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of >>>> energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by >>>> Maxwell. >>>> >>>> So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of >>>> properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in >>>> order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, >>>> to energy propagating through space. >>>> >>>> It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is >>>> present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can >>>> apparently more easily react with light. >>>> >>>> So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of >>>> matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react >>>> with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult >>>> to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this >>>> ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, >>>> it seems. >>>> >>>> When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a >>>> new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to >>>> exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its >>>> reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. >>>> >>>> While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally >>>> different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John >>>> W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different >>>> perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce >>>> the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to >>>> detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, >>>> using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in >>>> the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much >>>> as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I >>>> suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change >>>> in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. >>>> >>>> Chip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: General >>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of John Williamson >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> >>> > >>>> Cc: Joakim Pettersson >>> >; Nick Bailey >>> >; Manohar . >>>> >; Ariane >>>> Mandray > >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you >>>> are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try >>>> to communicate that. >>>> >>>> This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind >>>> at rest: it does! >>>> >>>> The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different >>>> perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. >>>> Funny that! >>>> >>>> Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW >>>> of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is >>>> linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for >>>> interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different >>>> thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads >>>> to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : >>>> interference is not interference. >>>> >>>> Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production >>>> threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by >>>> known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with >>>> themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. >>>> Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in >>>> light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with >>>> experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. >>>> >>>> Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from >>>> (the same stuff as) light"? >>>> >>>> What is going on? >>>> >>>> So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental >>>> properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. >>>> Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may >>>> annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and >>>> destroyed. >>>> >>>> This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word >>>> above) this is life or death for light. >>>> >>>> Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to >>>> describe this. >>>> >>>> HOW? >>>> >>>> One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" >>>> diagram. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum >>>> >>>> Ok ? but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, >>>> and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This >>>> is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it >>>> does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you >>>> get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is >>>> nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves >>>> with miniscule corrections. >>>> >>>> No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. >>>> Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the >>>> pure fields. >>>> >>>> Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell >>>> along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be >>>> something else. That is what all this is about. >>>> >>>> For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra >>>> degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the >>>> fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) >>>> and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. >>>> >>>> Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! >>>> >>>> If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of >>>> experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the >>>> papers. We should think of more. >>>> >>>> Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> Dear Chip, >>>> >>>> You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't >>>> work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' >>>> the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the >>>> whole standing wave collapses. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis >>>> incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will >>>> reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). >>>> >>>> It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the >>>> figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at >>>> sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. >>>> >>>> I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm >>>> not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned >>>> mirror is added. >>>> >>>> It is worth thinking about. >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> _______________________________ >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins >>> > wrote: >>>> Dear Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then if you set up this experiment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams >>>> of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom >>>> detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register >>>> about 50% of the beam intensity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure >>>> significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom >>>> detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change >>>> in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins >>>> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> ] On Behalf Of >>>> Andrew Meulenberg >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> >>> >; Andrew Meulenberg >>>> > >>>> Cc: Mary Fletcher >>> >; robert hudgins >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Chip, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You >>>> have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or >>>> emphasize our language. See comments below. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not >>>> occur. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes >>>> occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all >>>> respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute >>>> and empty point. >>>> >>>> The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole >>>> wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. >>>> This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible >>>> for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in >>>> the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave >>>> (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. >>>> For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with >>>> specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases >>>> differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical >>>> components occurs. >>>> Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common >>>> source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by >>>> reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since >>>> reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or >>>> divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. >>>> Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think >>>> about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical >>>> mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by >>>> assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg >>>> reflector might be similar to this concept. >>>> Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling >>>> Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning >>>> To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: >>>> >>>> it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; >>>> the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection >>>> angle. >>>> There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams >>>> visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and >>>> directions are identical. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But there exists another method to test for reflection: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If we start with this configuration? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as >>>> shown in red below? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in >>>> experiments. >>>> >>>> So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no >>>> evidence? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the >>>> bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not >>>> shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles >>>> the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the >>>> directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point >>>> in the future. >>>> >>>> From your next email, you state: >>>> >>>> Hi Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me rephrase my argument. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves >>>> propagate. >>>> >>>> Correct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected >>>> interference pattern for transmission. >>>> >>>> Correct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the >>>> two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. >>>> >>>> Correct >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, we can also say: >>>> >>>> First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves >>>> reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the >>>> expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. >>>> And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the >>>> two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the >>>> interaction. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have >>>> to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, >>>> and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted >>>> components. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, we can also say: >>>> >>>> Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to >>>> exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 >>>> degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them >>>> from transmitted components. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. >>>> >>>> If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still >>>> consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and >>>> Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional >>>> physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our >>>> papers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, >>>> and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must >>>> mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional >>>> detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe >>>> that there are 2 errors. >>>> >>>> The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not >>>> the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. >>>> I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by >>>> the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather >>>> than 'up' as shown. >>>> Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work >>>> together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model >>>> then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that >>>> we provided would resolve the issue. >>>> It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same >>>> results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important >>>> information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and >>>> their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. >>>> Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. >>>> Andrew >>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins >>>> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> ] On Behalf Of >>>> Andrew Meulenberg >>>> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> >>> >; Andrew Meulenberg >>>> > >>>> Cc: robert hudgins > >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Chip and Chandra, >>>> >>>> I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. >>>> Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both >>>> Dowling's paper attached to my email of: >>>> >>>> Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM >>>> >>>> Light from Light reflection >>>> >>>> and my comments on it in the email. >>>> >>>> Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. >>>> Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much >>>> better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations >>>> agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second >>>> 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and >>>> no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves >>>> (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I >>>> will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, >>>> the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure >>>> 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency >>>> envelope of the incident waves. >>>> >>>> Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips >>>> comment, is: >>>> >>>> "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the >>>> simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the >>>> waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis >>>> for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each >>>> other." >>>> >>>> The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine >>>> in the email): >>>> >>>> "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable >>>> to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." >>>> >>>> I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his >>>> simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than >>>> reflection of identical waves. >>>> >>>> For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein >>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics >>>> ) and >>>> Dirac statistics >>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics >>>> ) for >>>> non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, >>>> the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the >>>> observed interference region demands interference between two waves? >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> _________________________________--- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chip A. and Bob H.: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which >>>> I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary >>>> pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we >>>> use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as >>>> simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any >>>> wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single >>>> photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant >>>> detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out >>>> the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate >>>> energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is >>>> erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, >>>> defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The >>>> energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 >>>> cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical >>>> capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chandra. <> >>>> From: General >>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Chip Akins >>>> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM >>>> To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Robert Hudgins >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? >>>> imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference >>>> patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. >>>> The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course >>>> because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves >>>> passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here are the results of some of those simulations: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident >>>> at 45 degrees. >>>> >>>> Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree >>>> phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference >>>> pattern and no reflection. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able >>>> to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this >>>> is done with no reflection of waves. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect >>>> off one another. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com >>>> ] >>>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM >>>> To: chipakins at gmail.com ; >>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> >>>> Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph >>>> Penland >; Andrew >>>> meulenberg > >>>> Subject: Verification of Light Interactions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Chip, >>>> >>>> To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, >>>> non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally >>>> confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been >>>> thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. >>>> The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our >>>> results felt refreshing. >>>> >>>> What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the >>>> problem of short wavelength intervals: >>>> >>>> The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. >>>> Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear >>>> visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto >>>> Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified >>>> classroom demonstration procedure was published. >>>> >>>> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 >>>> >>>> >>>> Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a >>>> workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms >>>> are trapped between the oscillating potentials. >>>> >>>> >>>> Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 >>>> Lloyd's mirror experiment. >>>> >>>> >>>> For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was >>>> reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was >>>> examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex >>>> mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this >>>> experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for >>>> one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that >>>> the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like >>>> reflection zones. >>>> >>>> The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It >>>> requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. >>>> The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam >>>> is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) >>>> surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging >>>> beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point >>>> where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two >>>> clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, >>>> unambiguous results. >>>> >>>> We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light >>>> interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the >>>> beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference >>>> patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after >>>> the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a >>>> smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" >>>> light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated >>>> momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 >>>> (2011) >>>> [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of >>>> wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The >>>> Nature of Light: What are Photons? >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. >>>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>>> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>>> "> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>>> "> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>>> "> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>>> >>>> <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. >>>> Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light >>>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 >>>> "> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you would like to change your settings for the Nature of Light and >>> Particles General Discussion List, please visit >>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/ >>> listinfo/general-natureoflightandparticles.org >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of General Digest, Vol 8, Issue 6 >>> ************************************* >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > From davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 8 15:56:17 2015 From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com (davidmathes8 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:56:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [General] Fw: A few interesting papers - Sept 8 In-Reply-To: <105771902.3292603.1441745496909.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com> <105771902.3292603.1441745496909.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1472311108.3418425.1441752977274.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> All, I haven't the time to detail the work just yet. Hopefully, the following papers may provide the basis for a fruitful discussion.? 1. Molecules of Light NIST Physicists Show ?Molecules? Made of Light May Be Possible Ho (2015) Coulomb bounds states of strongly interacting photons?http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03859 Ho 2012 Annabelle Dark Matterhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0503v3.pdf 2. ?Swimming in spacetimehttp://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www/swimming.pdf 3. Magnetic wormholeA Magnetic Wormhole : Scientific Reports 4. Toroidal model with electric, magnetic and anapole momentsNonradiating anapole modes in dielectric nanoparticles : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group Note:?Toroidal moment - Wiki Best David From: Richard Gauthier To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra,? ?Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter ?all the way down?.?? ? ? Richard On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:? Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why?1.??????Knowledge of Physics:?My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying?physical processes?behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the?physical processes?that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the?enquiring mind?intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture.2.???????Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?:?While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same ?CTF?, without separate existence.?The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field!?That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to?average people?to pick up all over the world.?Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites.?We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed?perpetual information retrieval problem?by combining MDM-E and IPM-E.3.??????Consciousness:?Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere!???? Deductively, it is clear that the?biological consciousness and the biological intelligence,?not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the?potentiality?of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle!?Sincerely,Chandra.??From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Richard Gauthier Sent:?Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions ?Hello Chandra,? ? ?Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration.? ? ? Richard ? On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote: ?Dear All:?I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum.?Dear Richard G.:?My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction.?However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of ?thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds!?We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants!?People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years!?One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, ?(1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other.?How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies??QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the?realities?of the universe appear soelusive;?but they are not?illusions!?Sincerely,Chandra. ??From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Richard Gauthier Sent:?Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions?Hi all,? ? Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. ?We can?t ?get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we?? ? ? Richard? On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins wrote:?Hi John W. Andrew, and David?John W. and DavidIt is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason.We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light.? We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light.? And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell?s equations.We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell.So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space.It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light.So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems.When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology.? For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated.While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually.?AndrewThe beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave.? It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%.? But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested.? If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a?12.5% decrease?in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed.Chip?From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?John Williamson Sent:?Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Cc:?Joakim Pettersson ; Nick Bailey ; Manohar . ; Ariane Mandray Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions?Dear All, I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised).? The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? What is going on?? So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties.? Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed.This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this.HOW? One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuumOk ? but is this the whole story?? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections.No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields.Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about.For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed.Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something!If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more.Cheers, 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:?Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light InteractionsDear Chip,You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math).It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added.It is worth thinking about.Andrew _______________________________?On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins wrote: Dear Andrew?Then if you set up this experiment.?And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light,?you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity.??But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed.?If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror.?Chip???From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Andrew Meulenberg Sent:?Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc:?Mary Fletcher ; robert hudgins Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions?Dear Chip,Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below.?On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins wrote: Hi Andrew?There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur.?Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. - The identical part is for?components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for?portions?of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. - For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. - Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence)? free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror.?It reflects before it ever gets there.?Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. - Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV?Phase Labeling - Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V?Detuning To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: - ?it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; - the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. - There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. ?? But there exists another method to test for reflection:?If we start with this configuration?And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below??But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments.So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? ?Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future.From your next email, you state:Hi Andrew?Let me rephrase my argument.?First,?we know that transmission occurs,?because we know that the waves propagate.??Correct?Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for?transmission.??Correct?And we measure the?intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction.Correct?However, we can also say:First,?we know that?reflection?occurs,?because we know that the waves?reflect.? Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for?reflection of identical components.? And we measure the?intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other,?with?the interaction.??Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist,?if we vary the angles of incidence?through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this,?we only see the transmitted components.?However, we can also say:Second, we?do?see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist,?if we vary the convergence angles of incidence?through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However,?we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components.?So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?.If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof??I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers.?In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves."?First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. - The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. - I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue.It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later.Andrew?_______________________ ?Chip??From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Andrew Meulenberg Sent:?Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Andrew Meulenberg Cc:?robert hudgins Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions?Dear Chip and Chandra,I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of:Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PMLight from Light reflectionand my comments on it in the email. Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves.Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is:"The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns.? And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other."The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email):"Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission."I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves.For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves?Andrew_________________________________---? To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions?Chip A. and Bob H.:??Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book.?Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of?both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation.?Chandra.From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Chip Akins Sent:?Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM To:?'robert hudgins';?general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject:?Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions?Hi Robert Hudgins?Thank you for the email.? Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? imagination, and so they were intriguing to me.?So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves?which did not reflect off each other at all.? The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course?because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other.?Here are the results of some of those simulations:?Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees.Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees.?Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection.????????????????Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other.???????????????So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence,?we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns.?And this is done with no reflection of waves.???So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another.???Chip??From:?robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com]? Sent:?Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM To:?chipakins at gmail.com;?general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc:?robert hudgins ; Ralph Penland ; Andrew meulenberg Subject:?Verification of Light Interactions?Dear Chip, ?? To have our SPIE? presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing.? From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used.? Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern.?? Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation.? Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions.? The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials.? Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment.?? For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror.? A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image.? This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone.? We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones.??? The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple.?? It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter.? The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface.? Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter.? Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams.?? This system gives clear, unambiguous results. We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference.? It was quickly obvious that?all the light energy?in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter.?? (Well after the beams had merged.)? Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. ? ? ???Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011)?[1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? ?? Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. Bob ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at?mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ?_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at?richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ?_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at?richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ?<1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at?richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Tue Sep 8 20:58:14 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:58:14 +0200 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <8E1B6ACB-C737-4481-82DA-664343D6C057@gmail.com> References: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> , <8E1B6ACB-C737-4481-82DA-664343D6C057@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 8 21:56:58 2015 From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com (davidmathes8 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:56:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1699958260.3500560.1441774618746.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Logic gates alone do not provide a human interface.? Also, in the attempts I've seen to understand the physics of consciousness, one ends up considering DNA as an antenna with the brain as a transceiver. Not everything need be a digital computer. ?On top of the simplest binary logic computer, there needs be layers of firmware, system software for the operating system, layers in applications and layered communications. In a computer network the ?communications channels typically use?OSI?7 seven layers of software and firmware over hardware (x.200 specification). TCP/IP is only a four layer model. Current implementations use additional layers and separate channels for management and security.? Only one switch may be necessary but that switch better be really, really fast. One can do a lot with a single switch, preferably optical. Paging Alan Turing... Turing_machine - Universal Turing machine - Alternating Turing machine - Quantum Turing machine - Non-deterministic Turing machine - Read-only Turing machine - Read-only right moving Turing machines - Probabilistic Turing machine - Multitape Turing machine - Multi-track Turing machine - Turing machine equivalents - Turing machine examples The current status is that we can have a single atom switch, and switching can be done by a single photon.? ?Of course, your switch may vary.? David From: "af.kracklauer at web.de" To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; M.A. Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions If the most complex computer system is nothing but a (big) collection of off-on switches (binary logic), surely "the" mind, with orders of magnitude more switches, need be little else. ?? ?Gesendet:?Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr Von:?"Richard Gauthier" An:?"Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" , "M.A." Betreff:?Re: [General] Verification of Light InteractionsPlease ignore last email, I hit send by accident. Richard > On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > > > >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. wrote: >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> Interesting discussion. >> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of >> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes >> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) >> >> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is >> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have >> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. >> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included >> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, >> and, I believe, only one language. >> >> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is >> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a >> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists >> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial >> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that >> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. >> >> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. >> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: >> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually >> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind >> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. >> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it >> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting >> happens along (for part of) the way... >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 >>> From: Richard Gauthier >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> Hello Chandra, >>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or >>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need >>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical >>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old >>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized >>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may >>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But >>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet >>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter >>> ?all the way down?. >>> Richard >>> >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 22:30:53 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:30:53 -0700 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> <, > <8E1B6ACB-C737-4481-82DA-664343D6C057@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04D2466A-69F5-41D5-8288-7871333FFFC2@gmail.com> Hello Michael and Al, One thing the "mind as epiphenomenon? explanation has never been able to explain is the mind?s vivid subjective experience for example of bright red. You can have as complex a system of on-off switches or atoms or brain cells with lots of electric and magnetic fields and photons, but if you probe or measure with physical apparatus you will never find the experience of red. This is what is called the ?Hard problem? of consciousness research, since subjective experience is really hard to explain as being caused by objective physical interactions ? at most you can say such and such reported subjective experience is correlated with certain objective measurable physical data. But we all know that correlation is not causation. An alternative view is that consciousness is primary and matter is derived from it. As original consciousness takes on more and more attributes due to an inherent creative process, it becomes first more mental and then more physical, but consciousness is always present in the most material object, just ?covered up? by physical attributes. As those attributes slowly get removed during evolutionary processes, mind (a subtler form of consciousness) emerges from matter (a cruder form of consciousness). This is not an attempt to convince, just an expression of an alternative to purely materialistic thinking, which historically emerged as a reaction to and a kind of liberation from other types of dogmatic thinking. Richard > On Sep 8, 2015, at 8:58 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote: > > If the most complex computer system is nothing but a (big) collection of off-on switches (binary logic), surely "the" mind, with orders of magnitude more switches, need be little else. > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr > Von: "Richard Gauthier" > An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" , "M.A." > Betreff: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > Please ignore last email, I hit send by accident. > Richard > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. wrote: > >> > >> Hi Richard, > >> > >> Interesting discussion. > >> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of > >> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes > >> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) > >> > >> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is > >> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have > >> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. > >> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included > >> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, > >> and, I believe, only one language. > >> > >> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is > >> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a > >> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists > >> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial > >> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that > >> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. > >> > >> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. > >> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: > >> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually > >> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind > >> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. > >> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it > >> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting > >> happens along (for part of) the way... > >> > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> > >> > >>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 > >>> From: Richard Gauthier > >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > >>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > >>> > >>> Hello Chandra, > >>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or > >>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need > >>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical > >>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old > >>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized > >>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may > >>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But > >>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet > >>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter > >>> ?all the way down?. > >>> Richard > >>> > >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Wed Sep 9 02:25:50 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:25:50 +0000 Subject: [General] Fw: A few interesting papers - Sept 8 In-Reply-To: <1472311108.3418425.1441752977274.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com> <105771902.3292603.1441745496909.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <1472311108.3418425.1441752977274.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2a3ed4c84c454a429b63864a569b6302@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Dear David, Thank you for those very nice links, 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: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Sent: woensdag 9 september 2015 0:56 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] Fw: A few interesting papers - Sept 8 All, I haven't the time to detail the work just yet. Hopefully, the following papers may provide the basis for a fruitful discussion. 1. Molecules of Light NIST Physicists Show ?Molecules? Made of Light May Be Possible Ho (2015) Coulomb bounds states of strongly interacting photons http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03859 Ho 2012 Annabelle Dark Matter http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0503v3.pdf 2. Swimming in spacetime http://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www/swimming.pdf 3. Magnetic wormhole A Magnetic Wormhole : Scientific Reports 4. Toroidal model with electric, magnetic and anapole moments Nonradiating anapole modes in dielectric nanoparticles : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group Note: Toroidal moment - Wiki Best David ________________________________ From: Richard Gauthier > To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter ?all the way down?. Richard On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: Richard: As far as the scholarly knowledge in Vedic, Upanisadic and Yogic fields are concerned; I do not have any choice but take the American ?Fifth Amendment?! I am promoting enhanced Western method of thinking; not Eastern. Why? 1. Knowledge of Physics: My knowledge of science is entirely through Western books and PhD from USA. Clash came in my mind when I found that I can do the math to get the necessary grades, but I do not understand the underlying physical processes behind the Relativity and the QM theories. This was during my BS and MS classes in India. So, right from the beginning of my graduate life in USA, I started devising and doing experiments that facilitates exploring the physical processes that give rise to the measurable data. Obviously, this ?process-seeking? mind must have evolved out of my Indian blood and Indian culture; but, not through formal training in Indian philosophies. In fact, in my first interview with Prof. Leonard Mandel at the Rochester University; I was stupidly trying to convince him that I would work under him to demonstrate that the ?single photon interference? is not a valid physics conclusion. This was in 1969. Arriving from India, I had no idea that Mandel, during that period, was already ?riding high? for demonstrating ?single photon interference? through several different experiments! Mandel summarily transferred me from the Physics Department to the Institute of Optics. My ego felt deflated at that time; but Mandel took the most effective decision to build my future experience as a good engineering, with the enquiring mind intact. It took me many decades to recognize that we have a much bigger global problem. The Knowledge Gatekeepers in all fields, both in the East and the West, suffer from the same spell of Messiah Complex; which they impose, hand-in-glove, with the entire socio-econo-political culture. 2. ?Ether?, Indian ?Brahmha? and my ?CTF?: While Indian cultural upbringing does help Indian children to become ?Indian? in cultural behavior; very little is taught about the Indian philosophy in the mainstream schools and colleges. My concept of the existence of a ?Complex Tension Field? (CTF) emerged just as ?ether? concept was felt necessary in the West since Newton?s time. But, it got strengthened when I convinced myself of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) based on my experiments during mid 1970?s. NIW is valid for all tension-field based waves that are linear excitations of the mother tension field. Waves do not have SEPARATE existence, or SEPARATE INDENTITY. Then, I recognized that weakness of the old ether concept can be removed, once we validate that particles themselves are also various excited states of the same ?CTF?, without separate existence. The manifest universe is full of diverse dances of the same CTF field! That is when I realized that India ancient Hrishis must have known a lot more through their intuitive life-long meditation than the current Western Physics thinkers. But, they miserably failed to pass on that millennia-old knowledge seeking skills to average Indians. So, the current Indian backwardness gives me pause to recommend coopting the Indian Vedic epistemology, as is. I would still promote the Western Path, the ?evidence based? science, which is accessible to average people to pick up all over the world. Science for everybody to learn and to survive; it is not just for elites. We just need to add iterative application of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Western method of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). MDM-E is insufficient to keep us evolving. No data (evidence) can ever provide all the necessary information about the interactants we are interested in. We must learn to overcome nature imposed perpetual information retrieval problem by combining MDM-E and IPM-E. 3. Consciousness: Many well-known people have been promoting emergence of Consciousness out of Quantum Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not have an ?Uncertainty Principle?, albeit global scientific belief in it. [See my attached publication of 1978.]. It is about time that the Homo Sapiens stop arrogantly telling nature how she ought to behave out of our incomplete theories about her. Instead, we should keep on humbly discovering how she actually functions in reality. Our, sustainable survival depends upon this latter attitude. Otherwise, we will make ourselves extinct out of our arrogant ignorance! We have already become the most destructive pest in the biosphere! Deductively, it is clear that the biological consciousness and the biological intelligence, not just that of the Homo Sapiens, are deeply connected with the ultimate cosmic field, the ether in some form, or my CTF concept in some form. And, I promote this postulate, as yet un-validated, from the following deductive logics. Data from MRI and fMRI clearly indicate that Human consciousness is an emergent property of our total neural network (body and skull), made out of diverse kinds of biological cells. All cells are built out of diverse kinds of molecules. All biological molecules are built out of a small set of atoms. All atoms are built out of protons, neutrons and electrons. And, we are on the path to validate that all particles are localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF (in which EM waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations). Now, if we accept that elementary particles are really emergent properties (excitations) of the CTF (self-looped oscillations); then by the chain of logics, the emergence of biological consciousness out of biological bodies is clearly an emergent property of the CTF. But, we are still very far off from our ability to experimentally follow the emergence of every new property through every step of the way and scientifically claim that consciousness is an emergent property of the CTF (or the Eastern Brahmha). If the concept of CTF survives in some form or other, then we will have to agree that the potentiality of the emergence of consciousness is definitely contained (buried) in the CTF. Is CTF conscious? We really do not know; it could be; or may not be! But, publicly declaring so as a final knowledge without experimental validation will be just as arrogant as claiming human consciousness is a product of the Uncertainty Principle! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 12:49 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hello Chandra, Thank your for your explanations. I am completely sympathetic with your desire to rehabilitate the traditional concept of ?ether? scientifically by giving it the newer, more descriptive name Complex Tension Field. I think the same approach could be done with the other four traditional fundamental material factors described in Eastern philosophies: the aerial, luminous, liquid and solid factors. Have you considered how this might be done? Yoga philosophy describes these five fundamental physical factors (painca mahabhutas) as varying from the most subtle (etheric factor) to the most crude (solid factor). All of these factors are described in yoga philosophy as successively evolving from a cosmic mind which itself evolves from a state of pure consciousness (Nirguna Brahma). Do you think that physics is ready to consider this approach? In recent years consciousness studies have emerged as an active branch of research in many fields, including physics. The relationships of mind to matter still need to be better explained and explored scientifically. Understanding more deeply the nature of light and matter could be part of this exploration. Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > wrote: Dear All: I will write a more detailed response to the NIW-related discussions. This has reached a good positive level out of collective discussions; meeting the key purpose of this forum. Dear Richard G.: My personal belief is that nature is not subservient to elegant human theories. We should feel lucky that how much QM formalisms have given us access to validate diverse measurable data. This means we humans are not heading in a totally wrong direction. However, this does not mean that the foundational postulates of QM have captured all the necessary final set of postulates to build the perfect model of the Cosmic Building! Emulating a success track brings more successes more easily. But, following the same track of thinking will stop the evolution of human enquiring minds! We must keep on challenging the foundational postulates of the working theories: Classical, Relativities and QM. Then re-build a new set of postulates that harmoniously starts from a unified field-platform, which allows the harmonious emergence of waves and particles out of the same Complex Tension Field (CTF). We have been wasting time to unify diverse fields of physics by forcing the apples and oranges to become a new lovely fruit without going through the foundational genetic engineering by starting with the genes of the two plants! People in the field of biology are smarter than us; because they are a lot more humble people. They are rapidly advancing; physics is moribund for over 90 years! One can register the spectrum of Fe-atoms (photons?) by gathering the light from the sparks that one can generate by carefully swinging an iron rod against a cement floor. The iron-spectrum reflects QM excitations. But, it is the hand that provided the energy to the rod as classical kinetic energy, (1/2)mv-squared! We are not yet smart enough to connect directly the ?alpha? with the physical processes that went on between the molecules of iron-rod and the cement platform when they were forcefully grazed against each other. How do we bring conceptual continuity between delivering classical kinetic energy and the emergence of discrete set of quantum mechanical frequencies? QM does not have any fundamental postulate that QM excitation and/or QM energy transfer can happen only through QM interactions between QM-entities. Otherwise, the biological and cosmological evolution would not have been continuing! And, yet we are accepting, over a century, that the emission of a photo electron (QM-bound) conclusively proves that photons are quantized!! Creation and annihilation operators are no more than representing the functions of material dipole emitters and detectors. Only they can be the creators and annihilators of the ?available? EM energy which exists only as excitations of the vacuum (CTF); just like particles are. Vacuum holds all the energy. We are all assemblies of diverse excitations of the CTF. That is why the realities of the universe appear soelusive; but they are not illusions! Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:32 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi all, Just by looking at the the dimensions of the QED fine structure constant alpha = e^2/hbar c = approx 1/137 we can see what is important in the interaction between a photon and an electron is the electron?s charge -e, the photon?s speed c (and possibly the electron?s internal speed c) and the spins of the photon and/or the electron. We can?t get alpha from Maxwell?s equations, can we? Richard On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi John W. Andrew, and David John W. and David It is my belief that Maxwell?s equations MUST be extended, and that the observations which brought Chandra to propose the CTF is one reason. We see that light reacts with matter more readily than light reacts with light. We see that the energy in matter is in many ways similar to the energy in light. And we see that the energy in matter is confined by something not described by Maxwell?s equations. We can see properties displayed by various forms of the propagation of energy in space, like spin, and confinement, which were not addressed by Maxwell. So I see Chandra?s CTF to be the space which supports the real set of properties, and an extension to Maxwell?s equations to be required in order to sort this out, specifically because of the reaction of space, to energy propagating through space. It is interesting that Pauli exclusion, and spin ?, and often charge, is present in matter, and that with these properties, this energy can apparently more easily react with light. So far, in my research, this has indicated again that the ?spin mode? of matter is a significant contributor to the ability of matter to react with light waves. However, it also seems that it will be quite difficult to use light alone to create the correct circumstances to produce this ?spin mode?. So making matter from light will be a very elusive pursuit, it seems. When this energy is localized, that is to say confined, it takes on a new topology. For Martin?s hierarchy to work, for stable particles to exist, there is required to be more to the properties of space, and its reaction to energy, than Maxwell calculated. While, on the surface, it may seem that many of us have totally different ideas, I think that is more a matter of perspective, as John W. has pointed out, and that we are all using those different perspectives, and moving toward the same set of conclusions eventually. Andrew The beam splitter will not ?destroy? the standing wave. It will reduce the intensity of the standing wave to about 25%. But this is enough to detect if light is being reflected from light in this standing wave, using a test setup like the one suggested. If even half the light in the standing wave portion of the beam is reflected you may see as much as a 12.5% decrease in the intensity with the mirror in place. But I suspect that none of the light is reflected, and you will see no change in the detector output with the mirror in place, or removed. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 9:41 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Cc: Joakim Pettersson >; Nick Bailey >; Manohar . >; Ariane Mandray > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear All, I scarcely know where to start. How can I agree with so much of what you are all saying and yet disagree, in detail, with all of you. Let me try to communicate that. This email is likely to seem to contradict itself. Let me set your mind at rest: it does! The reason is that I am going to argue from a few different perspectives, and different perspectives give different perspectives. Funny that! Firstly, from the perspective of the (linear) Maxwell equations. The NIW of pure-field light-light interactions as described by Maxwell is linear. Superposition applies. Interference is a bad word for interference (as Chandra has emphasised). The "I" in NIW is a different thing entirely from the "interference" of light with light. This leads to the following manifestly true(if not very helpful) statement : interference is not interference. Maxwell is very very good. It is (as far as I know, sub pair production threshold and within its realm of validity) supported 100 percent by known experiment. Indeed photons do not "interfere only with themselves". Experimentally, they superpose on other photons. Linearly. Any simulation based on this is going to show this. Likewise, in light-light only interactions it is going to (very likely) agree with experiment. Conclusion: light does not reflect from light. Wait a minute: are not some of us arguing that "everything is made from (the same stuff as) light"? What is going on? So: lets expand the perspective to include matter. And its experimental properties. Matter does interact with light. Mirrors reflect it. Material refracts it. Atoms absorb and emit it. Material particles may annihilate to give pure light. In fact it is continuously created and destroyed. This is not just a bit of interference (in either meaning of the word above) this is life or death for light. Conclusion: one needs to go beyond (just) Maxwell if one wishes to describe this. HOW? One could go to QED. Then light interacts with light via a "box" diagram. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum Ok ? but is this the whole story? I think not. QED does not, can not, and will never explain the physical properties it puts in a-priori. This is true of any theory. It puts in point, massive, charges. Also: all it does is provide (miniscule) corrections to what Maxwell says, until you get right up to the pair-production threshold (and even there Maxwell is nearly 100 percent right). Material particles do not bind themselves with miniscule corrections. No, we need a theory that allows the topological confinement of light. Something that allows an extra degree of freedom, over and above the pure fields. Now this could be Chandra?s CTF, it could be an extension of Maxwell along some of the lines Martin and I are considering, or it could be something else. That is what all this is about. For me, for what it is worth, this extra thing does reside in the extra degrees of freedom that David was talking about, over and above the fields, afforded by such things as the angular momentum (T) p-vot (P) and quadrivector (Q) terms in the equations proposed. Anyway, matter happens, so it has got to be something! If so, then Bob and Andrew are right and we should be thinking of experiments to try to throw light on matter. I?ve suggested a few in the papers. We should think of more. Cheers, 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: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:55 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, You are thinking along the right lines. However, your example won't work. It requires a beam splitter (or sampler) that will not 'destroy' the standing wave. If there is no reflected wave at some point, the whole standing wave collapses. On the other hand, this exercise may have also proved my hypothesis incorrect (that only slightly more than 1/2 of the incident beam will reach the physical mirror - I need to do the math). It might be possible to set up standing waves in something like the figure below. Measuring the intensity of the evanescent waves at sequential reflection points might prove, or disprove, the point. I need to think about the details of such an experiment; however, I'm not sure that the intensity will diminish at the far end, if the aligned mirror is added. It is worth thinking about. Andrew _______________________________ On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Chip Akins > wrote: Dear Andrew Then if you set up this experiment. And then remove the mirror, if wave reflection is occurring in the beams of light, you would see the light intensity increase at the bottom detector. Without wave reflection the bottom detector will register about 50% of the beam intensity. But if wave reflection does occur then the bottom detector would measure significantly less than this value, and the intensity at the bottom detector would increase to about 50% when the left mirror is removed. If wave reflection does not occur, you would see no significant change in the bottom detector output, with or without the mirror. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 2:25 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: Mary Fletcher >; robert hudgins > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, Thank you for your thinking about the problem and your comments. You have identified several areas in which we need to clarify and/or emphasize our language. See comments below. On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chip Akins > wrote: Hi Andrew There are at least a couple of ways to show that reflection does not occur. Varying phase or frequency of one wave and looking at where the changes occur is one fairly clear method. No two waves are identical in all respects, so arguing that only two identical waves can reflect is a mute and empty point. 1. The identical part is for components, not necessarily for the whole wave. However, if all components are identical, then the waves are also. This identity of waves is mathematically possible. It is also possible for a single wave to be 'identical' with itself (this is important in the photon-to-electron transition) or for portions of a single wave (e.g., a split beam) to be identical. 2. For intersecting coherent waves, the phases will become coincident with specific phase angles, in specific portions of space. Where the phases differ by 180 degrees (the null zones), reflection of identical components occurs. 3. Non-identical portions do not reflect, they transmit. This is a common source of 'error' in the analysis of standing waves created by reflection of normally incident light from a physical mirror. Since reflection and transmission in space is generally not loss (or divergence) free, there will always be a 'flow' of light to the mirror. Only identical portions are reflected before reaching the mirror. Think about this: most of the incident light never reaches the physical mirror. It reflects before it ever gets there. Can you simulate that by assuming no transmission of identical light? Simulation of a Bragg reflector might be similar to this concept. 4. Re varying phase: see Dowling's section IV Phase Labeling 5. Re varying frequency: see Dowling's section V Detuning To make our point, we will need to emphasize that: 1. it is only the identical components of the waves that reflect; 2. the reflection plane (the 'mirror') is the bisector of the intersection angle. 3. There is no way to distinguish the reflected and transmitted beams visually or within the limits of the wave theory. Amplitudes, phases and directions are identical. But there exists another method to test for reflection: If we start with this configuration? And reflection occurs, then we would have the reflected components, as shown in red below? But we do not see these reflected components in simulation or in experiments. So why chase, and try to prove, something for which there is no evidence? Chip, you have missed an important point. The reflection planes are the bisector or are parallel to the bisector of the beams. you have not shown that. You have shown reflection from the other beam (this doubles the reflection angle). There should be no reflected energy in the directions that you have indicated. We will need to emphasize that point in the future. From your next email, you state: Hi Andrew Let me rephrase my argument. First, we know that transmission occurs, because we know that the waves propagate. Correct Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for transmission. Correct And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if they passed through each other, without interaction. Correct However, we can also say: First, we know that reflection occurs, because we know that the waves reflect. Then, when we cause two waves to become coincident, we see the expected interference pattern for reflection of identical components. And we measure the intensity, phase, and frequency, of the output of the two waves, as if their equal components reflected each other, with the interaction. Second, we do not see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees, and look for reflections. In this, we only see the transmitted components. However, we can also say: Second, we do see the reflections at the locations they would have to exist, if we vary the convergence angles of incidence through a full 360 degrees and look for reflections. However, we cannot distinguish them from transmitted components. So for me, those findings constitute sufficient ?proof?. If the alternative statements above are also 'true', do you still consider the findings sufficient for your proof? I, like Dowling and Gea-Banacloche, find the math ambiguous and in need of additional physics to resolve the issue. I feel that we have provided that in our papers. In your most recent email, you state: " If you conduct this experiment, and there are no waves following the red paths, then it seems it must mean that no reflection occurred at the intersection of the waves." First let me thank you for the figure. It provides some additional detail and information on the interference region. However, I believe that there are 2 errors. 1. The reflection plane should be the null-zone (across the center), not the other beam. The red lines are incorrectly placed. 2. I think that the diagonal blue 'arrow' is reversed. If it is as shown by the arrowhead, then the null zone would be diagonally 'down', rather than 'up' as shown. Chip, you bring some powerful tools to the group. If we can work together to get the reflection picture properly expressed in your model then Dowling's paper would be confirmed and the momentum analysis that we provided would resolve the issue. It might seem that transmission or reflection that produce the same results has no significance. However, the distinction provides important information for both the photonic electron and the nature of photons and their interactions. I can detail some of these things in the future. Some of it is in my other papers. I'll send them later. Andrew _______________________ Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:43 PM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; Andrew Meulenberg > Cc: robert hudgins > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip and Chandra, I will not have time to contribute much to this topic until next week. Before then, I hope that both of you will have a chance to read both Dowling's paper attached to my email of: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:33 PM Light from Light reflection and my comments on it in the email. Also, please look at the attached copy of our paper for the conference. Comments would be appreciated for both papers, since Dowling is a much better mathematical physicist than any of us and Chip's simulations agree 100% with the 1st 1/2 of Dowling's paper. To agree with the second 1/2, Chip needs to run his simulations assuming only reflected light and no transmitted light for equal components of the incident waves (assuming reflection from the null zones of the interference pattern). I will predict (as did Dowling's mathematics) that, for the equal waves, the results will be identical with Chip's figures 1 & 2. For his Figure 3, there will only be a component corresponding to the beat frequency envelope of the incident waves. Thus a conclusion based on those results could be, to modify Chips comment, is: "The interference patterns we see in experiment, agree with the simulated interference patterns. And these are obtained simply by the waves REFLECTING FROM each other. So there seems to be no physical basis for assuming any TRANSMISSION, when IDENTICAL waves ENCOUNTER each other." The resolution of the two statements is Dowling's conclusion (and mine in the email): "Dowling proposed that IDENTICAL waves interact. However, he was unable to PROVE reflection, rather than transmission." I will extend that statement to contend that Chip, based on his simulations, will be unable to PROVE transmission, rather than reflection of identical waves. For background, consider the basis for Bose-Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) and Dirac statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics) for non-interacting, identical particles. Does this resolve, or increase, the conflict between Chandra's NIW view and our contention that the observed interference region demands interference between two waves? Andrew _________________________________--- To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Chip A. and Bob H.: Here is a copy of the animation by my student, Michael Ambroselli, which I have been showing people for several years now. The stationary pictures are now in several papers and also in my book. Of course, it does not show ?reflection? of waves by waves; because we use the same prevalent model of superposition of wave amplitudes as simply linear sum of the propagating waves. We did not put in any wave-wave interaction term. Even people who firmly believe in ?single photon interference?, sum the linear amplitudes. Some resonant detectors, if inserted within the volume of superposition, can carry out the non-linear square modulus operation to absorb the proportionate energy out of both the fields, not just one or the other, as is erroneously assumed by most believers of ?single photon interference?, defying the starting math of summing two amplitudes a1 and a2. The energy absorbed is proportional to: [(a1)-squared+(a2)-squared+ 2a1a2 cos2(pi)(nu)(t2-t1)]. Linear waves do not have the intrinsic physical capacity to carry out the mathematical quadratic operation. Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 1:22 PM To: 'robert hudgins'; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Hi Robert Hudgins Thank you for the email. Your concepts show an ?out-of-the-box? imagination, and so they were intriguing to me. So far, I have run some simulations to see what the interference patterns would be for waves which did not reflect off each other at all. The way I know that these simulated waves do not reflect, is of course because I wrote the simulations to explicitly show only two waves passing through each other, with no ability to reflect off each other. Here are the results of some of those simulations: Image: 1, Left Side, Two waves of the same frequency and phase, incident at 45 degrees. Image: 2, Right Side, Two waves of the same frequency with 180 degree phase shift, incident at 45 degrees. Note the expected interference pattern and no reflection. Image: 3, two waves of different frequencies passing through each other. So far, using simulations, and varying angles of incidence, we are able to reproduce the experimentally observed interference patterns. And this is done with no reflection of waves. So, sorry, I do not see any physical reason to assume that waves reflect off one another. Chip From: robert hudgins [mailto:hudginswr at msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 AM To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: robert hudgins >; Ralph Penland >; Andrew meulenberg > Subject: Verification of Light Interactions Dear Chip, To have our SPIE presentation, with its data, receive a broad, non-specific and vocal rejection from many attendees was personally confusing. From our perspective, those results (and ideas) had been thoroughly tested, retested and reconciled with current literature. The openness you indicated by your intent to try replicating some our results felt refreshing. What follows are some pointers about possible ways to work-around the problem of short wavelength intervals: The standing wave frequency is 1/2 the wave length of the light used. Consequently, some method of expansion is usually required for clear visualization of a standing wave pattern. Many investigators use Otto Wiener's 1890 method or some variation. Recently, a simplified classroom demonstration procedure was published. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/77/8/10.1119/1.3027506 Standing waves of light in the form of optical lattices are currently a workhorse for manipulating ultra-cold bosons and fermions. The atoms are trapped between the oscillating potentials. Another important standing wave/interference demonstration is the 1837 Lloyd's mirror experiment. For our study we used a precision 15 X 5cm mirror. A laser beam was reflected a shallow angle and the resulting interference pattern was examined after expanding its image. This was accomplished with a convex mirror placed near the end of the reflection zone. We did this experiment to demonstrate that a mirror reflection would substitute for one of the beams in a two crossing-beam interference pattern, and that the null zones in the crossed-beam interference behaved as mirror--like reflection zones. The set-up we use for our interference studies is very simple. It requires only two components; a laser and a variable density filter. The variable density filter becomes a beam splitter when the laser beam is reflected from both the front and the back (partially mirrored) surface. Adjusting the relative intensities and phases of the emerging beams is accomplished by changing the reflection angle and the point where the beam strikes the splitter. Proper adjustment should give two clearly separated, and independent beams. This system gives clear, unambiguous results. We began our pursuit as a search for the "cancelled" energy of light interference. It was quickly obvious that all the light energy in the beams emerging from the beam splitter was detectable in the interference patterns, that formed at some distance from the splitter. (Well after the beams had merged.) Although interference confined the light to a smaller area, (compressed the light) we found no evidence of "cancelled" light waves (energy) or of photodetector limitations. Hudgins, W. R., Meulenberg, A., Ramadass, S., ?Evidence for unmediated momentum transfer between light waves,? Paper 8121-39, Proc. SPIE 8121 (2011) [1]Hudgins, W., R., A. Meulenberg, A., Penland, R. F. ?Mechanism of wave interaction during interference,? SPIE (2013) Paper 8832-7, in The Nature of Light: What are Photons? Please let us know if you were successful, or not, with your testing. Bob _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe <1978.xx_Found.Phys._Uncrtnty. Prncpl.pdf>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf at nascentinc.com Wed Sep 9 10:41:21 2015 From: wolf at nascentinc.com (Wolfgang Baer) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:41:21 -0700 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> <8E1B6ACB-C737-4481-82DA-664343D6C057@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55F06F41.8050000@nascentinc.com> I agree that computers mimik intelligence , thought and mind. I think Searly's Chinese Room analogy makes the point. One can respond rationally on a blind rule based instruction sheet withoout ever knowing or imagining that is having the experiences we normally associate with conscious beings Of course since I am a pan-psychist and am developing a pan-psychic physics that includes the conscious observer as a foundational principle I also believe those switches and systems of switches have a primitive-consciousness built into their material. So there is a natural will and desire built into them. We capture, and control that natural desire and behavior to make the switches do our tedious symbolic manipulation. What this means is that a large enough computer may develop a consciousness much like a cockroach probably has feelings but that would be its own way of feeling not ours. The idea that a computer who is mimicking human response patterns actually will have human feelings like many sci-fy movies portray is pure fiction. Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/8/2015 8:58 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote: > If the most complex computer system is nothing but a (big) collection > of off-on switches (binary logic), surely "the" mind, with orders of > magnitude more switches, need be little else. > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr > *Von:* "Richard Gauthier" > *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > , "M.A." > > *Betreff:* Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > Please ignore last email, I hit send by accident. > Richard > > > On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. wrote: > >> > >> Hi Richard, > >> > >> Interesting discussion. > >> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of > >> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes > >> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) > >> > >> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is > >> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have > >> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. > >> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included > >> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, > >> and, I believe, only one language. > >> > >> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is > >> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a > >> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists > >> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial > >> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that > >> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. > >> > >> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. > >> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: > >> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually > >> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind > >> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. > >> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it > >> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting > >> happens along (for part of) the way... > >> > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> > >> > >>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 > >>> From: Richard Gauthier > >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions > >>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > >>> > >>> Hello Chandra, > >>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or > >>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need > >>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical > >>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. > The old > >>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized > >>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may > >>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But > >>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself > is yet > >>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter > >>> ?all the way down?. > >>> Richard > >>> > >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Wed Sep 9 11:46:05 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:46:05 +0200 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <1699958260.3500560.1441774618746.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: , <1699958260.3500560.1441774618746.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Wed Sep 9 22:31:43 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 07:31:43 +0200 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <04D2466A-69F5-41D5-8288-7871333FFFC2@gmail.com> References: <3db45de2100cd545193d6461ef532678.squirrel@www.phys.uconn.edu> <, > <8E1B6ACB-C737-4481-82DA-664343D6C057@gmail.com> , <04D2466A-69F5-41D5-8288-7871333FFFC2@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chipakins at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 04:27:23 2015 From: chipakins at gmail.com (Chip Akins) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:27:23 -0500 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: References: , <1699958260.3500560.1441774618746.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008401d0ebbb$aed23d90$0c76b8b0$@gmail.com> Hi Al Having done some work in the field of artificial intelligence. Neurons fire on somewhat of a sigmoid curve when the electrical impulses from all input synapses reach a threshold. Each synapse has a weighted value (attenuation or amplification). The networks are quite complex, and have both analog and digital components. But the fact that all of this can be modeled in a computer is an illustration that the problem can be broken down into binary logic. But binary is not how nature is doing it. The fact that we solve these problems using binary tools does not mean nature does it this way. Nature does it more efficiently. I do not feel there must be consciousness in everything, or that space is necessarily built from consciousness. But I do feel there must be an intelligence generated origin of the universe. For me it seems that there is just too much that is perfect in the design, to assume otherwise. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:46 PM To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; M.A. Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions OK, name one (1) interaction that can't be broken down into a long string of binary switches. (In technical terms: name a numbering system that cannot be converted to binary.) Likewise, name a series of words that cannot be reduced to (encoded as) digits in any base, and then reduced to binary. Everything we "know" has been convayed to us using language. For most readers here that's English (but could be any human language). All of them are routinely encoded as numbers, mostly binary even, so who needs mystical fantazmagorical goings on to discuss the "mind"? There is nothing in anybody'a head but a large bunch of synopsis (molecular switches) that obviously individually can't do anything but turn on and off (transmit or block). Isn't that amazing enough? Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 06:56 Uhr Von: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > Cc: "M.A." > Betreff: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Logic gates alone do not provide a human interface. Also, in the attempts I've seen to understand the physics of consciousness, one ends up considering DNA as an antenna with the brain as a transceiver. Not everything need be a digital computer. On top of the simplest binary logic computer, there needs be layers of firmware, system software for the operating system, layers in applications and layered communications. In a computer network the communications channels typically use OSI 7 seven layers of software and firmware over hardware (x.200 specification). TCP/IP is only a four layer model. Current implementations use additional layers and separate channels for management and security. Only one switch may be necessary but that switch better be really, really fast. One can do a lot with a single switch, preferably optical. Paging Alan Turing... Turing_machine * Universal Turing machine * Alternating Turing machine * Quantum Turing machine * Non-deterministic Turing machine * Read-only Turing machine * Read-only right moving Turing machines * Probabilistic Turing machine * Multitape Turing machine * Multi-track Turing machine * Turing machine equivalents * Turing machine examples The current status is that we can have a single atom switch, and switching can be done by a single photon. Of course, your switch may vary. David _____ From: "af.kracklauer at web.de " > To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >; M.A. > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions If the most complex computer system is nothing but a (big) collection of off-on switches (binary logic), surely "the" mind, with orders of magnitude more switches, need be little else. Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr Von: "Richard Gauthier" > An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "M.A." > Betreff: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions Please ignore last email, I hit send by accident. Richard > On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier > wrote: > > > >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. > wrote: >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> Interesting discussion. >> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of >> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes >> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF) >> >> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is >> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have >> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e. >> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included >> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe, >> and, I believe, only one language. >> >> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is >> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a >> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists >> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial >> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that >> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge. >> >> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising. >> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things: >> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually >> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind >> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls. >> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it >> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting >> happens along (for part of) the way... >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700 >>> From: Richard Gauthier > >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions >>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> Hello Chandra, >>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or >>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need >>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical >>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old >>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized >>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may >>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But >>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet >>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter >>> ?all the way down?. >>> Richard >>> >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Thu Sep 10 08:24:32 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:24:32 +0200 Subject: [General] Verification of Light Interactions In-Reply-To: <008401d0ebbb$aed23d90$0c76b8b0$@gmail.com> References: , <1699958260.3500560.1441774618746.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> , <008401d0ebbb$aed23d90$0c76b8b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Fri Sep 11 09:51:52 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:51:52 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> Message-ID: <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: > > Martin, > > I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your > article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that > confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal > energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure > which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light > Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even > better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the > concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. > The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. > Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and > kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a > proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia > or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes > either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at > the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same > principles as confined light in a reflecting box. > > John M. > > *From:* General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > *Subject:* [General] research papers > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic > 4-current from topological EM fields > > Very 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 phys at a-giese.de > > Click here to unsubscribe > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at macken.com Fri Sep 11 14:51:46 2015 From: john at macken.com (John Macken) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:51:46 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ 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 phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Introduction to the Spacetime Field and Vacuum Energy.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 13892 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 11 18:47:27 2015 From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com (davidmathes8 at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 01:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> References: <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> Message-ID: <1514598862.1302864.1442022447382.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> John I like the introduction. Quantum, quantifying and quantizing. One?minor clarification to avoid further confusion on some folks part might be to clearly (blatantly?and ?explicitly note the difference. My guess is there has to be some order to these different words with a common root: quantify, quantum, then quantize might be useful. However, quantum is used to mean elementary particles as well as sub-elementary particle so clarifying assumptions are useful to set the context. QM assumes that particles are a point which may not be a reality. This may impact how one does the math especially when energy density, or in the case of relativity, momentum-energy. Another minor point is a terminology mix.?There are at least three major choices, all which can be mathematically equivalent. ?However, the quantum physicists prefer #3 1. Particles, fields and forces (Macken 2015) 2. Particles, fields and cross-interactions (Sarfatti 2015) 3. Matter and fields (Sutherland 2015 per Quantum Workshop) YMMV David From: John Macken To: phys at a-giese.de; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [General] research papers #yiv6320154031 #yiv6320154031 -- _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv6320154031 #yiv6320154031 p.yiv6320154031MsoNormal, #yiv6320154031 li.yiv6320154031MsoNormal, #yiv6320154031 div.yiv6320154031MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 a:link, #yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6320154031 a:visited, #yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6320154031 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle18 {color:windowtext;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle20 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle25 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6320154031 .yiv6320154031MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6320154031 div.yiv6320154031WordSection1 {}#yiv6320154031 _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;}#yiv6320154031 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6320154031 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6320154031 Hello Albrecht and All, ?I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field.? It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis.? Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model.? ?Albrecht:? I appreciate your email.? We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity.? The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group.? Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation.? You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?.? Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem?? What is your basic particles made of?? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)?? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model?? ?These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum).? This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists.? ?Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand.? You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model.? I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way.? I just wanted to make an initial point. ?John M. ? From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers ?Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia.? I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle.? It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin,?I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy.? Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force.? I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better.? An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light.? Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions.? I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions.? Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box.?John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers?Dear all,My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publicationsIn particular you will find the most recent work: - On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces - Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very best regards,Martin?Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare?Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE? Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548??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 phys at a-giese.deClick here to unsubscribe | | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com | ? _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sun Sep 13 08:08:06 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:08:06 +0100 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <001e01d0ee36$0071d850$015588f0$@btconnect.com> All: Make sure you check out Albrecht ?s website re things like gravity. I might express things slightly differently, but I think the general idea expressed by Albrecht is essentially correct. And I don?t anybody who described this before he did. Regards John Duffield From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar ticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 11 September 2015 17:52 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ 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 phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 9418 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 13 09:31:35 2015 From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com (davidmathes8 at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <001e01d0ee36$0071d850$015588f0$@btconnect.com> References: <001e01d0ee36$0071d850$015588f0$@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <252353381.1751005.1442161895997.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> John D I'm not so sure this is unique or the first. Various theories GEM, EGM and so on have attempted to explain gravity.? The Poynting Vector, S = E X M, is well established science. In a peer reviewed paper, the Poynting vector is considered to be directly proportional to gravity. Murad and Brandenburg published... http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/The_Murad-Brandenburg_Equation.pdf The Murad-Brandenburg Equation - A Wave Partial Differential Conservation Expression for the Poynting Vector/Field (AIAA) David From: John Duffield To: phys at a-giese.de; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [General] research papers #yiv2986337547 #yiv2986337547 -- _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv2986337547 #yiv2986337547 p.yiv2986337547MsoNormal, #yiv2986337547 li.yiv2986337547MsoNormal, #yiv2986337547 div.yiv2986337547MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;color:black;}#yiv2986337547 a:link, #yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2986337547 a:visited, #yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2986337547 p {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv2986337547 pre {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547EmailStyle18 {color:windowtext;}#yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547EmailStyle20 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv2986337547 span.yiv2986337547EmailStyle25 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2986337547 .yiv2986337547MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv2986337547 div.yiv2986337547WordSection1 {}#yiv2986337547 _filtered #yiv2986337547 {} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv2986337547 {font-family:Symbol;}#yiv2986337547 ol {margin-bottom:0cm;}#yiv2986337547 ul {margin-bottom:0cm;}#yiv2986337547 All: ?Make sure you check out Albrecht?s website re things like gravity. ? ? ? ?I might express things slightly differently, but I think the general idea expressed by Albrecht is essentially correct. And I don?t anybody who described this before he did. ?? ?RegardsJohn Duffield ? From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 11 September 2015 17:52 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers ?Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia.? I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle.? It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin,?I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy.? Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force.? I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better.? An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light.? Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions.? I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions.? Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box.?John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers?Dear all,My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publicationsIn particular you will find the most recent work: - On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces - Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very best regards,Martin?Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare?Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE? Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548??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 phys at a-giese.deClick here to unsubscribe | | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com | ? _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 9418 bytes Desc: not available URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Sun Sep 13 13:42:58 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:42:58 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> Message-ID: <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello Albrecht and All, > > I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is > a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has > been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now > understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to > accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction > to ease the reader of my book into my model. > > *Albrecht:* I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which > include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the > explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same > as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a > fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a > fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. > Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is > your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of > attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an > electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does > your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you > derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your > model? > > These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these > things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum > possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy > density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no > different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when > they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. > > *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to > take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I > contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific > details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an > initial point. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM > *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Dear John Macken, > > I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write > "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs > field is needed to give inertia to fermions". > > We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on > elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to > explain inertia. I give you as a reference: > > >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, > 4(2011) 43201< , > > which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia > according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too > small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another > weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass > of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) > > As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model > explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but > provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is > classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the > mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to > the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also > explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is > related to its wavelength. > > You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but > also on the following web sites: > > www.ag-physics.org/rmass > www.ag-physics.org/electron . > > You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string > "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, > where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. > > If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy > about any discussion. > > With best regards > Albrecht Giese > > Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: > > Martin, > > I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your > article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that > confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with > equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different > photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already > reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding > the article would be even better. An expanded article would have > particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed > to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give > inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts > exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at > relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs > field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic > energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a > confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the > speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same > principles as confined light in a reflecting box. > > John M. > > *From:* General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] research papers > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic > 4-current from topological EM fields > > Very 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Image removed by sender. Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john at macken.com Sun Sep 13 17:54:10 2015 From: john at macken.com (John Macken) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:54:10 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. John M. From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ 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 phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Mon Sep 14 08:26:20 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:26:20 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <252353381.1751005.1442161895997.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <001e01d0ee36$0071d850$015588f0$@btconnect.com> <252353381.1751005.1442161895997.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55F6E71C.6040403@a-giese.de> Hi David, you are right that there is a lot of theories about gravity. I take it as an advantage of my model that it directly deduces the law of gravity introduced by Newton using the known variation of c and the internal oscillation in elementary particles. And at the same time it covers the relativistic aspects of gravity. Sincerely Albrecht Am 13.09.2015 um 18:31 schrieb davidmathes8 at yahoo.com: > John D > > I'm not so sure this is unique or the first. Various theories GEM, EGM > and so on have attempted to explain gravity. > > The Poynting Vector, *S* = *E* X *M*, is well established science. In > a peer reviewed paper, the Poynting vector is considered to be > directly proportional to gravity. Murad and Brandenburg published... > > http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/The_Murad-Brandenburg_Equation.pdf > The Murad-Brandenburg Equation - A Wave Partial Differential > Conservation Expression for the Poynting Vector/Field (AIAA) > > > David > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* John Duffield > *To:* phys at a-giese.de; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General > Discussion' > *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 8:08 AM > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > All: > Make sure you check out Albrecht?s website > re things like gravity. > I might express things slightly differently, but I think the > general idea expressed by Albrecht is essentially correct. And I > don?t anybody who described this before he did. > Regards > John Duffield > > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:* 11 September 2015 17:52 > *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > Dear John Macken, > > I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You > write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the > Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". > > We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on > elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to > explain inertia. I give you as a reference: > >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of > Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , > which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia > according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too > small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another > weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the > mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are > known.) > > As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model > explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but > provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is > classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains > the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, > due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the > model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of > a photon is related to its wavelength. > > You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, > but also on the following web sites: > > www.ag-physics.org/rmass > www.ag-physics.org/electron . > > You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string > "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, > where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. > > If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy > about any discussion. > > With best regards > Albrecht Giese > > Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: > > Martin, > I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update > your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical > proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as > particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box > causes different photon pressure which results in a net > inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy > article in my book, but expanding the article would be even > better. An expanded article would have particular relevance > to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia > to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to > confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the > correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic > conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field > gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy > to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a > confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at > the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the > same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. > John M. > *From:* General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] research papers > Dear all, > My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic > 4-current from topological EM fields > > Very 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of > Light and Particles General Discussion List at > davidmathes8 at yahoo.com > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > Click here to unsubscribe > > > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Mon Sep 14 12:45:52 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:45:52 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> Message-ID: <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello David and Albrecht, > > It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to > understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum > energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the > term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and > general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet > we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we > live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of > the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime > field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. > > *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and quantizing. > I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either > the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper > /Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether/ submitted to SPIE as part of the > conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. > This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my > website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ > > *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for > David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my > model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start > my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do > not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous > particle models from this group and others which show an electron > model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the > group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two > balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of > strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to > describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the > electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and > energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon > occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? > Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate > faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other > more basic component? > Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. > > I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate > the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models > lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the > particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I > have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s > Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I > install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the > properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing > a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric > field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational > force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of > spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a > photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate > both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we > reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. > In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). > > My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of > spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which > describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then > the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. > This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be > calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point > energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ?units of quantized > angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is > quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that > the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible > to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the > surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the > effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the > coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge /e/, > it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. > How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). > > The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be > boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be > nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as > separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational > field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, > force and energy density). > > In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10^120 > difference between the observable energy density of the universe and > the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy > density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point > energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission > and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density > is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 > /G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is > obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for > *you* to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime > being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In > fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The > indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe > and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this > reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect > differences in energy. The constants /c,/ /G/, /?/and /?_o / testify > that spacetime is not an empty void. > Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and /?_o / is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. > > If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed > limit of /c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships > leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach > a speed of 0.75 /c/ relative to the earth. The earth bound observer > sees them separating at 1.5 /c/ but the rules of relativistic addition > of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving > away at only 0.96 /c/. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty > void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, > fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they > combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length > and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with > dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single > component. The universe is only spacetime. > If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. > > John M. > Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht > > *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM > *To:* John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - > General Discussion' > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Hello John, > > great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have > presented. Thank you. > > There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that > this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main > stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) > is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a > magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can > the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That > cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact > that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. > > In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in > the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical > way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has > precise quantitative results. > > To your questions in detail: > The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an > oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single > object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are > composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong > force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on > all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this > model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of > forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak > force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant > caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all > but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other > forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not > necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical > conflicts. > > The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are > configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential > minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is > enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. > Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make > the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an > opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, > the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If > this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by > the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. > > With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject > to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result > from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. > > This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those > are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because > not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the > universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you > also mention in your paper attached to your mail. > > The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at > quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The > density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field > diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. > > So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections > of further questions. > > Best regards > Albrecht > > Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello Albrecht and All, > > I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. > It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime > field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group > because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some > scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the > attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. > > *Albrecht:* I appreciate your email. We agree on several points > which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity > in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are > the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation > of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You > substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two > ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just > double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What > is the physics behind the force of attraction between the > particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does > your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a > gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the > Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? > > These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of > these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that > the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type > of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or > momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED > calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or > that zero point energy really exists. > > *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided > to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person > that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the > scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted > to make an initial point. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM > *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Dear John Macken, > > I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You > write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the > Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". > > We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on > elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to > explain inertia. I give you as a reference: > > >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle > Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , > > which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia > according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too > small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another > weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the > mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are > known.) > > As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model > explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but > provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is > classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains > the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, > due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the > model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of > a photon is related to its wavelength. > > You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, > but also on the following web sites: > > www.ag-physics.org/rmass > www.ag-physics.org/electron . > > You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string > "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, > where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. > > If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy > about any discussion. > > With best regards > Albrecht Giese > > > Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: > > Martin, > > I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update > your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical > proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as > particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box > causes different photon pressure which results in a net > inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy > article in my book, but expanding the article would be even > better. An expanded article would have particular relevance > to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia > to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to > confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly > the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic > conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field > gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy > to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a > confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at > the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the > same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. > > John M. > > *From:* General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM > *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > > > *Subject:* [General] research papers > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic > 4-current from topological EM fields > > Very 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Image removed by sender. Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Image removed by sender. Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf at nascentinc.com Tue Sep 15 21:22:09 2015 From: wolf at nascentinc.com (Wolfgang Baer) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:22:09 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <55F8EE71.50008@nascentinc.com> Albrecht: I've been studying your web site and would like a hard copy so I can get to an easier chair The requested URL /pdf/main.pdf was not found on this server. It looks like a great site and summarizes everything you've been talking about best wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > John, > > You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. > > Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >> >> Hello David and Albrecht, >> >> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to >> understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum >> energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the >> term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and >> general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and >> yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that >> we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis >> of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single >> ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and >> forces. >> >> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and >> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word >> ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. >> However, the paper /Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether/ submitted to >> SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the >> word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and >> is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >> >> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification >> for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that >> my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will >> start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models >> which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been >> numerous particle models from this group and others which show an >> electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most >> of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the >> two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of >> strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to >> describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or >> the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy >> and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon >> occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? >> Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate >> faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other >> more basic component? >> > > Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a > physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that > a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits > exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding > of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are > very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are > not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the > physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in > configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is > in contrast to the electric charges. > > The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the > strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a > way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an > elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally > an electric charge in the basic particle. > > The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the > strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an > equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary > particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This > strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is > well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for > all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the > photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor > caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of > this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. > > The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its > wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my > model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the > correct result. > > As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is > in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >> >> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate >> the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models >> lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the >> particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than >> I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s >> Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I >> install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the >> properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. >> Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the >> correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, >> gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the >> distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric >> field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that >> they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black >> hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >> > In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other > leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact > that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells > us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This > explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also > found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. > > Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by > c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result > of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >> >> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of >> spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which >> describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then >> the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. >> This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be >> calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point >> energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ?units of quantized >> angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is >> quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that >> the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible >> to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the >> surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the >> effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the >> coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge /e/, >> it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >> > How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the > calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric > charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From > alpha? How do you then get alpha? > > I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using > spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to > the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that > he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with > Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of > problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in > general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes > logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of > Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of > relativity). >> >> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be >> boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be >> nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as >> separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational >> field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, >> force and energy density). >> >> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10^120 >> difference between the observable energy density of the universe and >> the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy >> density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point >> energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission >> and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density >> is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 >> /G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is >> obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for >> *you* to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime >> being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In >> fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The >> indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe >> and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this >> reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect >> differences in energy. The constants /c,/ /G/, /?/and /?_o / testify >> that spacetime is not an empty void. >> > Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I > find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be > observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in > Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture > of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. > But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my > understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. > > The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken > as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. > Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep > present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. > > The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the > reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But > it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant > which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I > have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force > (any force has to be described by a field constant); and /?_o / is the > field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >> >> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed >> limit of /c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships >> leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach >> a speed of 0.75 /c/ relative to the earth. The earth bound observer >> sees them separating at 1.5 /c/ but the rules of relativistic >> addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other >> spaceship moving away at only 0.96 /c/. How is this possible if >> spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this >> because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the >> spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations >> which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen >> unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and >> everything is made of the single component. The universe is only >> spacetime. >> > If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer > at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? > If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of > the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). > The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools > accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run > differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for > time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For > contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact > independent of relativity (and which was already known before > Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be > measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the > measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to > the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the > measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and > books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following > Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >> >> John M. >> > Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I > am afraid. > > Albrecht >> >> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >> *To:* John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - >> General Discussion' >> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers >> >> Hello John, >> >> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have >> presented. Thank you. >> >> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think >> that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to >> main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an >> example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, >> how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be >> explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream >> physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum >> mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how >> necessary QM is. >> >> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in >> the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical >> way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has >> precise quantitative results. >> >> To your questions in detail: >> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of >> an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single >> object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are >> composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong >> force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on >> all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this >> model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of >> forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak >> force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant >> caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all >> but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other >> forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not >> necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical >> conflicts. >> >> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are >> configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential >> minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is >> enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. >> Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to >> make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an >> opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, >> the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If >> this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by >> the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >> >> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject >> to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result >> from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >> >> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. >> Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative >> because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy >> of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 >> which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >> >> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard >> at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. >> The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field >> diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >> >> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections >> of further questions. >> >> Best regards >> Albrecht >> >> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >> >> Hello Albrecht and All, >> >> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. >> It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime >> field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this >> group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for >> some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written >> the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my >> model. >> >> *Albrecht:* I appreciate your email. We agree on several points >> which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity >> in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement >> are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your >> explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an >> explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an >> electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress >> or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles >> made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction >> between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric >> field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your >> model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you >> derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from >> your model? >> >> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of >> these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that >> the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a >> type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or >> momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED >> calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or >> that zero point energy really exists. >> >> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided >> to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person >> that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the >> scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted >> to make an initial point. >> >> John M. >> >> *From:*General >> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese >> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers >> >> Dear John Macken, >> >> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You >> write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that >> the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >> >> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on >> elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to >> explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >> >> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle >> Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >> >> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia >> according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude >> too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. >> (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell >> us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other >> parameters are known.) >> >> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model >> explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but >> provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass >> is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also >> explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more >> difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have >> shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, >> if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >> >> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, >> but also on the following web sites: >> >> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >> >> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string >> "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the >> list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >> >> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be >> happy about any discussion. >> >> With best regards >> Albrecht Giese >> >> >> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >> >> Martin, >> >> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update >> your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical >> proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as >> particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box >> causes different photon pressure which results in a net >> inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy >> article in my book, but expanding the article would be even >> better. An expanded article would have particular relevance >> to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia >> to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to >> confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly >> the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic >> conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field >> gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy >> to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a >> confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at >> the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the >> same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >> >> John M. >> >> *From:* General >> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der >> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> >> >> *Subject:* [General] research papers >> >> Dear all, >> >> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >> >> In particular you will find the most recent work: >> >> * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >> * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic >> 4-current from topological EM fields >> >> Very 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 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 atphys at a-giese.de >> >> > > >> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Image removed by sender. Avast logo >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Image removed by sender. Avast logo >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf at nascentinc.com Wed Sep 16 12:59:05 2015 From: wolf at nascentinc.com (Wolfgang Baer) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:59:05 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > John, > > You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. > > Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >> >> Hello David and Albrecht, >> >> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to >> understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum >> energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the >> term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and >> general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and >> yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that >> we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis >> of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single >> ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and >> forces. >> >> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and >> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word >> ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. >> However, the paper /Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether/ submitted to >> SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the >> word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and >> is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >> >> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification >> for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that >> my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will >> start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models >> which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been >> numerous particle models from this group and others which show an >> electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most >> of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the >> two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of >> strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to >> describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or >> the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy >> and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon >> occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? >> Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate >> faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other >> more basic component? >> > > Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a > physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that > a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits > exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding > of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are > very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are > not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the > physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in > configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is > in contrast to the electric charges. > > The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the > strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a > way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an > elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally > an electric charge in the basic particle. > > The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the > strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an > equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary > particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This > strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is > well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for > all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the > photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor > caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of > this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. > > The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its > wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my > model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the > correct result. > > As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is > in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >> >> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate >> the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models >> lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the >> particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than >> I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s >> Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I >> install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the >> properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. >> Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the >> correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, >> gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the >> distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric >> field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that >> they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black >> hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >> > In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other > leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact > that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells > us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This > explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also > found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. > > Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by > c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result > of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >> >> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of >> spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which >> describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then >> the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. >> This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be >> calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point >> energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ?units of quantized >> angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is >> quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that >> the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible >> to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the >> surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the >> effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the >> coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge /e/, >> it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >> > How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the > calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric > charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From > alpha? How do you then get alpha? > > I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using > spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to > the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that > he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with > Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of > problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in > general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes > logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of > Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of > relativity). >> >> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be >> boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be >> nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as >> separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational >> field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, >> force and energy density). >> >> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10^120 >> difference between the observable energy density of the universe and >> the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy >> density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point >> energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission >> and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density >> is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 >> /G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is >> obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for >> *you* to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime >> being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In >> fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The >> indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe >> and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this >> reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect >> differences in energy. The constants /c,/ /G/, /?/and /?_o / testify >> that spacetime is not an empty void. >> > Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I > find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be > observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in > Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture > of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. > But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my > understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. > > The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken > as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. > Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep > present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. > > The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the > reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But > it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant > which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I > have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force > (any force has to be described by a field constant); and /?_o / is the > field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >> >> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed >> limit of /c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships >> leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach >> a speed of 0.75 /c/ relative to the earth. The earth bound observer >> sees them separating at 1.5 /c/ but the rules of relativistic >> addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other >> spaceship moving away at only 0.96 /c/. How is this possible if >> spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this >> because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the >> spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations >> which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen >> unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and >> everything is made of the single component. The universe is only >> spacetime. >> > If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer > at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? > If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of > the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). > The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools > accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run > differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for > time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For > contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact > independent of relativity (and which was already known before > Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be > measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the > measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to > the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the > measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and > books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following > Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >> >> John M. >> > Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I > am afraid. > > Albrecht >> >> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >> *To:* John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - >> General Discussion' >> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers >> >> Hello John, >> >> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have >> presented. Thank you. >> >> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think >> that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to >> main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an >> example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, >> how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be >> explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream >> physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum >> mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how >> necessary QM is. >> >> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in >> the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical >> way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has >> precise quantitative results. >> >> To your questions in detail: >> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of >> an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single >> object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are >> composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong >> force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on >> all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this >> model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of >> forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak >> force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant >> caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all >> but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other >> forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not >> necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical >> conflicts. >> >> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are >> configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential >> minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is >> enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. >> Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to >> make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an >> opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, >> the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If >> this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by >> the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >> >> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject >> to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result >> from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >> >> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. >> Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative >> because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy >> of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 >> which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >> >> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard >> at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. >> The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field >> diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >> >> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections >> of further questions. >> >> Best regards >> Albrecht >> >> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >> >> Hello Albrecht and All, >> >> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. >> It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime >> field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this >> group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for >> some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written >> the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my >> model. >> >> *Albrecht:* I appreciate your email. We agree on several points >> which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity >> in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement >> are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your >> explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an >> explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an >> electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress >> or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles >> made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction >> between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric >> field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your >> model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you >> derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from >> your model? >> >> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of >> these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that >> the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a >> type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or >> momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED >> calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or >> that zero point energy really exists. >> >> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided >> to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person >> that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the >> scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted >> to make an initial point. >> >> John M. >> >> *From:*General >> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese >> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers >> >> Dear John Macken, >> >> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You >> write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that >> the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >> >> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on >> elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to >> explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >> >> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle >> Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >> >> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia >> according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude >> too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. >> (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell >> us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other >> parameters are known.) >> >> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model >> explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but >> provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass >> is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also >> explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more >> difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have >> shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, >> if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >> >> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, >> but also on the following web sites: >> >> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >> >> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string >> "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the >> list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >> >> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be >> happy about any discussion. >> >> With best regards >> Albrecht Giese >> >> >> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >> >> Martin, >> >> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update >> your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical >> proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as >> particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box >> causes different photon pressure which results in a net >> inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy >> article in my book, but expanding the article would be even >> better. An expanded article would have particular relevance >> to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia >> to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to >> confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly >> the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic >> conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field >> gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy >> to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a >> confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at >> the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the >> same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >> >> John M. >> >> *From:* General >> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der >> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> >> >> *Subject:* [General] research papers >> >> Dear all, >> >> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >> >> In particular you will find the most recent work: >> >> * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >> * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic >> 4-current from topological EM fields >> >> Very 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 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 atphys at a-giese.de >> >> > > >> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Image removed by sender. Avast logo >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Image removed by sender. Avast logo >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 05:28:37 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:28:37 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> Message-ID: Hello, Please take a look at http://www.opli.net/opli_magazine/eo/2015/is-the-electron-a-spin-1-2-charged-photon-sept-news/ . I received a copy of this online photonics magazine yesterday. Wrote to the editor suggesting an article. They asked me to send an original news article, which I then wrote and sent back. It was accepted and this is the result. Richard > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > > I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. > I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. > If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. > > best wishes, > > Wolf > > Dr. Wolfgang Baer > Research Director > Nascent Systems Inc. > tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 > E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com > On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >> John, >> >> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>> >>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. >>> >>> David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>> >>> Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? >> >> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >> >> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >> >> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >> >> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. >> >> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >>> >>> >>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >> >> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>> >>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >> How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >> >> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >>> >>> >>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. >> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >> >> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. >> >> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>> >>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. >> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>> John M. >> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. >> >> Albrecht >>> >>> From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [ mailto:genmail at a-giese.de ] >>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>> To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. >>> >>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >>> >>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >>> >>> To your questions in detail: >>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>> >>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>> >>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >>> >>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >>> >>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>> >>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Albrecht >>> >>> >>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>> >>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. >>> >>> Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>> >>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. >>> >>> Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>> >>> John M. >>> >>> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Dear John Macken, >>> >>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>> >>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) >>> >>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >>> >>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>> >>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>> >>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >>> >>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. >>> >>> With best regards >>> Albrecht Giese >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>> Martin, >>> >>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >>> >>> John M. >>> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der >>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: [General] research papers >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>> >>> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>> Very 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 phys at a-giese.de >>> > >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 06:08:28 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:08:28 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> Message-ID: <343315BD-4796-4324-A5EA-C4102BAECCB4@gmail.com> John M, Chip and others, This article Gravity originates from variable energy density of quantum vacuum at http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20140303.11.pdf describes an interesting new approach to the origin of gravity. It came up in Amrit Sorli?s reply in a ResearchGate discussion I am involved in at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_the_universe_have_emerged_from_a_single_quantum_particle_a_cosmic_quantum . Richard > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > > I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. > I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. > If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. > > best wishes, > > Wolf > > Dr. Wolfgang Baer > Research Director > Nascent Systems Inc. > tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 > E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com > On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >> John, >> >> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>> >>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. >>> >>> David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>> >>> Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? >> >> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >> >> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >> >> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >> >> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. >> >> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >>> >>> >>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >> >> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>> >>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >> How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >> >> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >>> >>> >>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. >> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >> >> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. >> >> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>> >>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. >> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>> John M. >> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. >> >> Albrecht >>> >>> From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [ mailto:genmail at a-giese.de ] >>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>> To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. >>> >>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >>> >>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >>> >>> To your questions in detail: >>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>> >>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>> >>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >>> >>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >>> >>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>> >>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Albrecht >>> >>> >>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>> >>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. >>> >>> Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>> >>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. >>> >>> Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>> >>> John M. >>> >>> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Dear John Macken, >>> >>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>> >>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) >>> >>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >>> >>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>> >>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>> >>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >>> >>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. >>> >>> With best regards >>> Albrecht Giese >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>> Martin, >>> >>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >>> >>> John M. >>> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der >>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: [General] research papers >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>> >>> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>> Very 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 phys at a-giese.de >>> > >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 20:01:36 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:01:36 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> Message-ID: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > > I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. > I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. > If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. > > best wishes, > > Wolf > > Dr. Wolfgang Baer > Research Director > Nascent Systems Inc. > tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 > E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com > On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >> John, >> >> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>> >>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. >>> >>> David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>> >>> Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? >> >> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >> >> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >> >> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >> >> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. >> >> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >>> >>> >>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >> >> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>> >>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >> How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >> >> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >>> >>> >>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. >> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >> >> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. >> >> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>> >>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. >> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>> John M. >> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. >> >> Albrecht >>> >>> From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [ mailto:genmail at a-giese.de ] >>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>> To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. >>> >>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >>> >>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >>> >>> To your questions in detail: >>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>> >>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>> >>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >>> >>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >>> >>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>> >>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Albrecht >>> >>> >>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>> >>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. >>> >>> Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>> >>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. >>> >>> Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>> >>> John M. >>> >>> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Dear John Macken, >>> >>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>> >>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) >>> >>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >>> >>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>> >>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>> >>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >>> >>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. >>> >>> With best regards >>> Albrecht Giese >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>> Martin, >>> >>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >>> >>> John M. >>> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der >>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: [General] research papers >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>> >>> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>> Very 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 phys at a-giese.de >>> > >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Tue Sep 22 11:13:00 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:13:00 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> Message-ID: <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at > http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is > worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the > electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of > some of our electron models. > Richard > >> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > > wrote: >> >> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not >> available on the web sight. >> I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. >> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. >> >> best wishes, >> >> Wolf >> >> Dr. Wolfgang Baer >> Research Director >> Nascent Systems Inc. >> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 >> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com >> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >>> John, >>> >>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >>> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able >>>> to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum >>>> energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of >>>> the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and >>>> general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and >>>> yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is >>>> that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical >>>> basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single >>>> ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and >>>> forces. >>>> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and >>>> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word >>>> ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last >>>> post. However, the paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New >>>> Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, >>>> used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached >>>> to previous posts, and is available at my website: >>>> http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>>> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification >>>> for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that >>>> my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will >>>> start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models >>>> which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been >>>> numerous particle models from this group and others which show an >>>> electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most >>>> of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names >>>> the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and >>>> charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is >>>> necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the >>>> strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? >>>> How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force >>>> have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton >>>> wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force >>>> charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or >>>> photons made of any other more basic component? >>> >>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point >>> a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption >>> that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which >>> emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general >>> understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric >>> ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the >>> strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also >>> have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the >>> strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, >>> never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >>> >>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the >>> strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in >>> a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes >>> an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is >>> additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >>> >>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the >>> strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an >>> equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the >>> elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of >>> this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron >>> because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This >>> field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. >>> It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there >>> may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not >>> fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two >>> other particles. >>> >>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its >>> wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my >>> model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is >>> the correct result. >>> >>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is >>> in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >>>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate >>>> the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models >>>> lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the >>>> particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more >>>> than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the >>>> electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. >>>> However, once I install these into the model that I create, and >>>> combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get >>>> an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon >>>> with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of >>>> spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to >>>> quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged >>>> particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these >>>> models and show that they generate both the correct energy density >>>> and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of >>>> the spacetime field. >>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other >>> leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact >>> that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant >>> tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. >>> This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was >>> also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >>> >>> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied >>> by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the >>> result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties >>>> of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which >>>> describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then >>>> the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is >>>> quantified. This combination allows the energy density of >>>> spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density >>>> of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as >>>> ??units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime >>>> field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, >>>> etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is >>>> being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a >>>> structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is >>>> possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle >>>> model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck >>>> charge), To get charge/e/, it is necessary to manually install the >>>> fine structure constant. >>> How do you get the value??for the angular momentum? What is the >>> calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the >>> electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? >>> From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >>> >>> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using >>> spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came >>> to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was >>> that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions >>> with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of >>> problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in >>> general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes >>> logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of >>> Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way >>> of relativity). >>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be >>>> boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should >>>> be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and >>>> treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s >>>> gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on >>>> the rate of time, force and energy density). >>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10^120 >>>> difference between the observable energy density of the universe >>>> and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable >>>> energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero >>>> point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous >>>> emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable >>>> energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance >>>> of spacetime c^3 /G. Since I can also show how this non-observable >>>> energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it >>>> is necessary for*you*to show how all these effects can be achieved >>>> without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable >>>> energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to >>>> direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms >>>> the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? >>>> of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable >>>> because we can only detect differences in energy. The >>>> constants/c,//G/,/?/and/?_o /testify that spacetime is not an empty >>>> void. >>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I >>> find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be >>> observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use >>> in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a >>> lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good >>> results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is >>> successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this >>> is a weak point. >>> >>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is >>> taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream >>> physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a >>> solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This >>> causes me some concern. >>> >>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the >>> reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But >>> it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant >>> which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I >>> have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong >>> force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and/?_o >>> /is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed >>>> limit of/c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships >>>> leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they >>>> reach a speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. The earth bound >>>> observer sees them separating at 1.5/c/but the rules of >>>> relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing >>>> the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96/c/. How is this >>>> possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe >>>> answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made >>>> of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz >>>> transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of >>>> this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in >>>> spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The >>>> universe is only spacetime. >>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer >>> at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? >>> If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed >>> of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write >>> it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools >>> accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run >>> differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for >>> time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For >>> contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a >>> fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before >>> Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be >>> measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the >>> measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to >>> the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause >>> the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers >>> and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, >>> following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>>> John M. >>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, >>> I am afraid. >>> >>> Albrecht >>>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] >>>> *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>>> *To:*John Macken; 'Nature of Light and Particles - >>>> General Discussion' >>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>> >>>> Hello John, >>>> >>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have >>>> presented. Thank you. >>>> >>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think >>>> that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to >>>> main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an >>>> example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, >>>> how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be >>>> explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main >>>> stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to >>>> quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows >>>> how necessary QM is. >>>> >>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in >>>> the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a >>>> classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one >>>> but has precise quantitative results. >>>> >>>> To your questions in detail: >>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of >>>> an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single >>>> object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are >>>> composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong >>>> force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective >>>> on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of >>>> this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two >>>> kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. >>>> The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller >>>> coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is >>>> not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side >>>> effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved >>>> spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's >>>> spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>>> >>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are >>>> configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential >>>> minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is >>>> enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. >>>> Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to >>>> make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have >>>> an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each >>>> other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong >>>> forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is >>>> described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions >>>> of de Broglie. >>>> >>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and >>>> subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin >>>> result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >>>> >>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. >>>> Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative >>>> because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum >>>> energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of >>>> 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >>>> >>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard >>>> at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange >>>> particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of >>>> the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>>> >>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your >>>> objections of further questions. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Albrecht >>>> >>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>>> >>>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my >>>> book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the >>>> spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact >>>> with this group because I now understand better the key >>>> stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. >>>> Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the >>>> reader of my book into my model. >>>> *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We agree on several points >>>> which include the size of the electron and there is a >>>> similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of >>>> disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the >>>> group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not >>>> really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle >>>> such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made >>>> any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your >>>> basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force >>>> of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind >>>> an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? >>>> How does your model create a gravitational field (curved >>>> spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian >>>> gravitational equation from your model? >>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all >>>> of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact >>>> that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized >>>> as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest >>>> mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that >>>> QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum >>>> energy or that zero point energy really exists. >>>> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have >>>> decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the >>>> first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy >>>> to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational >>>> way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>>> John M. >>>> *From:*General >>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese >>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> >>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>> Dear John Macken, >>>> >>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You >>>> write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that >>>> the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>>> >>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working >>>> on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able >>>> to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>>> >>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics >>>> G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>>> >>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia >>>> according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude >>>> too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. >>>> (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not >>>> tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other >>>> parameters are known.) >>>> >>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model >>>> explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea >>>> but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The >>>> mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It >>>> also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is >>>> more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I >>>> have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of >>>> photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >>>> >>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego >>>> meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>>> >>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>>> >>>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the >>>> string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of >>>> the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >>>> >>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be >>>> happy about any discussion. >>>> >>>> With best regards >>>> Albrecht Giese >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>>> >>>> Martin, >>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update >>>> your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical >>>> proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as >>>> particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box >>>> causes different photon pressure which results in a net >>>> inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy >>>> article in my book, but expanding the article would be even >>>> better. An expanded article would have particular >>>> relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to >>>> give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to >>>> give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light >>>> exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even >>>> at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that >>>> the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia >>>> or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that >>>> includes either a confined photon or confined waves in >>>> spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia >>>> and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined >>>> light in a reflecting box. >>>> John M. >>>> *From:*General >>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >>>> Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der >>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General >>>> Discussion >>>> >>>> *Subject:*[General] research papers >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>>> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>>> >>>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>>> >>>> * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>>> * Quantum mechanical probability current as >>>> electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>>> >>>> Very 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 >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> 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 atphys at a-giese.de >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>> www.avast.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>> www.avast.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Avast logo >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of >> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com >> >> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 10:02:56 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:02:56 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. > > He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. > This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. > > In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. > > Thank you again and best wishes > Albrecht > > > Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >> This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. >> Richard >> >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer < wolf at nascentinc.com > wrote: >>> >>> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. >>> I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. >>> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. >>> >>> best wishes, >>> >>> Wolf >>> >>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer >>> Research Director >>> Nascent Systems Inc. >>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 >>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com >>> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >>>> John, >>>> >>>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >>>> >>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>>>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>>>> >>>>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. >>>>> >>>>> David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? >>>> >>>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >>>> >>>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >>>> >>>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >>>> >>>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. >>>> >>>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >>>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >>>> >>>> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>>>> >>>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >>>> How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >>>> >>>> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. >>>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >>>> >>>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. >>>> >>>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>>>> >>>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. >>>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>>>> John M. >>>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. >>>> >>>> Albrecht >>>>> >>>>> From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de ] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>>>> To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >>>>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>>>> >>>>> Hello John, >>>>> >>>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >>>>> >>>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >>>>> >>>>> To your questions in detail: >>>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>>>> >>>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>>>> >>>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >>>>> >>>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >>>>> >>>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>>>> >>>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Albrecht >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>>>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>>>> >>>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. >>>>> >>>>> Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>>>> >>>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. >>>>> >>>>> Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>>>> >>>>> John M. >>>>> >>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>>>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>>>> >>>>> Dear John Macken, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>>>> >>>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) >>>>> >>>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >>>>> >>>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>>>> >>>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>>>> >>>>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >>>>> >>>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. >>>>> >>>>> With best regards >>>>> Albrecht Giese >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>>>> Martin, >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >>>>> >>>>> John M. >>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>>> Subject: [General] research papers >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>>>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>>>> >>>>> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>>>> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>>>> Very 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 phys at a-giese.de >>>>> > >>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>> www.avast.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>> www.avast.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>> www.avast.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com >>>> > >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >> > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu Thu Sep 24 09:24:23 2015 From: chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu (Roychoudhuri, Chandra) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:24:23 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> Message-ID: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb Hello Everybody: Here is an interesting paper, ?Gravity, Not Mass Increases with Velocity?, worth reading and re-interpreting in the context of my proposal, space as a stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). Perpetually propagating EM waves are linear excitations. Inertial particles are non-linear excitations of the same CTF that are localized self-looped oscillations. [Thus, M-M experiments cannot refute the existence of the CTF concept.] These self-looped oscillations experience velocity-dependent inertial resistance even in the absence of any other force fields. Fluid mechanics supports this concept. We do not need gravity on any other force to increase for higher velocity particles. The inertial resistance of the particles (self-looped oscillation) increases as it tries to move with higher and higher velocity through the CTF. This is a much better physical model than the ad hoc Special Relativistic mass increase, time dilation and space contraction. I am enjoying Spain (Barcelona and Valencia) giving workshop lectures on the Non-Interaction of Waves while celebrating ?2015- International Year of Light?. Sincerely, Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:03 PM To: phys at a-giese.de Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ 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 phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 24 13:28:58 2015 From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com (davidmathes8 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1407958092.570596.1443126538741.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Chandra >?Perpetually propagating EM waves are linear excitations.? > Inertial particles are non-linear excitations of the same CTF that are localized self-looped oscillations.? That is probably the best summary I have seen so far. However, Manor seems to ignore EM. I wonder how well Manor's paper would hold up using Ashtekar's 1989 work which I quote. "... electrons are very simple,their masses could be characterized by a bare mass, mo, and two self-energy terms, the electrical due totheir electric charge and the gravitational due to their bare mass." mass(e) = bare mass + electrical charge - gravitational mass While Manor has proposed an interesting theory suggesting that a contextual constant, G, varies by velocity. ?In some momentum theories, one can set G =1 and then the math simplifies to mass and velocity. More commonly, c is set to 1, and in doing so is precluding the use of EM forces.? Also, the math seems a bit too simple...if I may... Now, he begins with the Newtonian equation of a = - GM/r^2 So the first issue might be when there is zero mass or zero radius especially in the denominator. QM might not even have a point to hang it's hat on. However, folks may be more familiar with... m a = d(mv)/dt = -G mM/r^2? Now a pre-partical derivative student would expand d(mv)/dt to... d(mv)/dt = dm/dt v + m dv/dt ? ? where the second term is the well known term, m a. So one can add the Lorentz factor to the above equation to produce some relativistic treatment, but not necessarily the correct rigorous result required. The dm/dt term is in question. As Woodward, Fearn, Williams and others have shown, this Newtonian equation needs a relativistic treatment with full general relativity.?Even in the simpler case of linearized general relativity, typically Hoyle-Narlikar (Fearn 2014, Williams 2014), a wave equation needs to be developed to properly described any change in mass especially transient changes. One has to use Ashketar's? From?Making Stargates - Woodward 2011"We examine this problem, finding that a plausible solution does not depend on the laws ofquantum gravity, as some have proposed. Rather, the solution depends on understanding the nature of electrons interms of a semi-classical extension of the exact, general relativistic electron model of Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner(ADM), and Mach?s Principle. ? Now, Manor's paper does appear to perform the necessary simplified math but does it rise to the rigor of general relativity or is it simply a nice gedanken at the special relativity level. Can one simply add a Lorentz factor and thus make the leap from special relativity to general relativity? A rigorous review would address varying not only mass and velocity, but c, G and h. So Manor is only looking at G as a mass equivalent, and essentially ignoring any change in c or h effectively setting them to 1. Assuming flat space, if G varies as well as mass and velocity, then the math gets a bit more interesting...first, a bit of rearranging may be in order. For this equation, I will ?leave out the Lorentz factor... G^-1 d(mv)/dt = G^-1 (dm/dt v + m dv/dt) + [ (ln G + constant) ?(m v) ] Now the assumption of flat space is rather simplistic. Curved, warped, torsion or "wormhole" spacetime will increase the complexity even further.? With the introduction of ln G, the need for charge treatment (EM, weak) a full paper is required... Best, David From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; "phys at a-giese.de" Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [General] research papers #yiv6364872956 #yiv6364872956 -- _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv6364872956 #yiv6364872956 p.yiv6364872956MsoNormal, #yiv6364872956 li.yiv6364872956MsoNormal, #yiv6364872956 div.yiv6364872956MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6364872956 a:link, #yiv6364872956 span.yiv6364872956MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6364872956 a:visited, #yiv6364872956 span.yiv6364872956MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6364872956 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv6364872956 p.yiv6364872956MsoAcetate, #yiv6364872956 li.yiv6364872956MsoAcetate, #yiv6364872956 div.yiv6364872956MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv6364872956 span.yiv6364872956HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv6364872956 span.yiv6364872956apple-converted-space {}#yiv6364872956 span.yiv6364872956BalloonTextChar {}#yiv6364872956 span.yiv6364872956EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv6364872956 .yiv6364872956MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6364872956 div.yiv6364872956WordSection1 {}#yiv6364872956 _filtered #yiv6364872956 {} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6364872956 {font-family:Symbol;}#yiv6364872956 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6364872956 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6364872956 http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb Hello Everybody: Here is an interesting paper, ?Gravity, Not Mass Increases with Velocity?, worth reading and re-interpreting in the context of my proposal, space as a stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). Perpetually propagating EM waves are linear excitations. Inertial particles are non-linear excitations of the same CTF that are localized self-looped oscillations. [Thus, M-M experiments cannot refute the existence of the CTF concept.] These self-looped oscillations experience velocity-dependent inertial resistance even in the absence of any other force fields. Fluid mechanics supports this concept. We do not need gravity on any other force to increase for higher velocity particles. The inertial resistance of the particles (self-looped oscillation) increases as it tries to move with higher and higher velocity through the CTF. This is a much betterphysical model than the ad hoc Special Relativistic mass increase, time dilation and space contraction. ? I am enjoying Spain (Barcelona and Valencia) giving workshop lectures on the Non-Interaction of Waves while celebrating ?2015- International Year of Light?. ? Sincerely, Chandra. ? From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:03 PM To: phys at a-giese.de Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers ? Hello Albrecht, ? ?Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. ? ? all the best, ? ? ? ? ?Richard ? On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: ? Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at?http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com?is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. ? ? ? Richard ? On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: ? I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, ? It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?.?? Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are.? My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces.? ? David, you asked about the words?quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post.? However, the paper?Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether?submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website:??http://onlyspacetime.com/ ? Albrecht:? I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives.? I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields.? I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields.? There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass.? Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?.? Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force.? What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges.? The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles.? The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. ? I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers.? So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency.? I am not demanding anything more than I have already done.? For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant.? However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron.? Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves.? I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon.? I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field.? In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). ? My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime.? The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified.? This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ????units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field.? This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc.? Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime.? It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge?e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant.?? How do you get the value?????for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). ? The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear.? When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: ?curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120?difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe.? This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for?you?to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density.? In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere.? It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe.? For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy.? The constants?c,?G,???and??o?testify that spacetime is not an empty void.?? Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and??o?is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. ? If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of?c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75?c?relative to the earth.? The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5?c?but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96?c.? How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void.? My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks.? None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component.? The universe is only spacetime.? If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime.? John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht ? From:?Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]? Sent:?Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To:?John Macken?; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'? Subject:?Re: [General] research papers ? Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To? your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie.? With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry.? So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, ? I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field.? It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis.? Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model.?? ? Albrecht:??I appreciate your email.? We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity.? The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group.? Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation.? You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?.? Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem?? What is your basic particles made of?? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)?? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model??? ? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum).? This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists.?? ? Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand.? You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model.? I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way.? I just wanted to make an initial point. ? John M. ? From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent:?Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To:?general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject:?Re: [General] research papers ? Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia.? I give you as a reference:? >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle.? It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength.? You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron?. You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, ? I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy.? Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force.? I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better.? An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light.? Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions.? I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions.? Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. ? John M.? From:?General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]?On Behalf Of?Mark, Martin van der Sent:?Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To:?Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion? Subject:?[General] research papers ? Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: - On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces - Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ? ? 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 phys at a-giese.de Click here to unsubscribe | | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft.? www.avast.com | ? | | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft.? www.avast.com | ? | | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft.? www.avast.com | _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at?richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ? | | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com | ? ? _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Fri Sep 25 02:07:13 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:07:13 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56050EC1.2040103@a-giese.de> Thank you, Chandra, for the link. The author of that paper, Manor, assumes that the effect of relativistically increased mass means in reality a change in gravity. But what about situations where gravity is not essential? At the DESY accelerator in Hamburg electrons have been accelerated so that e.g. its relativistic mass reaches 900 MeV, so about the rest mass of the proton. If now the electron collides with a proton, the mechanical reaction is so as if two objects of similar mass collide. This is generally taken as an indication that the mass of the electron is in fact increased. - This situation is not measurably influenced by gravity. Regarding Special Relativity: You mean that the time dilation is an "at hoc" assumption? The dilation is - easily visible; one can move a clock forth and back and compare it later to another clock which was at rest all the time. The clock in motion is then retarded. This fact is used (and so also proven) at the operation of GPS satellites. - there are a lot of indications that in elementary particles there is a permanent motion at c (speed of light), "zitterbewegung". This is a simple physical reason for dilation. It does not even need a relativity principle. Sincerely Albrecht Am 24.09.2015 um 18:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra: > > http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb > > Hello Everybody: Here is an interesting paper, ?Gravity, Not Mass > Increases with Velocity?, worth reading and re-interpreting in the > context of my proposal, space as a stationary Complex Tension Field > (CTF). Perpetually propagating EM waves are linear excitations. > Inertial particles are non-linear excitations of the same CTF that are > localized self-looped oscillations. [Thus, M-M experiments cannot > refute the existence of the CTF concept.] These self-looped > oscillations experience velocity-dependent inertial resistance even in > the absence of any other force fields. Fluid mechanics supports this > concept. We do not need gravity on any other force to increase for > higher velocity particles. The inertial resistance of the particles > (self-looped oscillation) increases as it tries to move with higher > and higher velocity through the CTF. This is a much better */physical > model/* than the ad hoc Special Relativistic mass increase, time > dilation and space contraction. > > I am enjoying Spain (Barcelona and Valencia) giving workshop lectures > on the Non-Interaction of Waves while celebrating ?2015- International > Year of Light?. > > Sincerely, > > Chandra. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:03 PM > *To:* phys at a-giese.de > *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Hello Albrecht, > > Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the > Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the > reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the > generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin > 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases > by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating > a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model > could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength > hbar/mc. > > all the best, > > Richard > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > > wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. > > He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the > electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the > magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x > 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. > This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has > determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in > 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the > zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest > energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also > meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. > > In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is > exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an > expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but > the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. > > Thank you again and best wishes > Albrecht > > Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > > This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank > Wilczek at > http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is > worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of > the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the > range of some of our electron models. > > Richard > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > > wrote: > > I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the > one not available on the web sight. > I was looking for a similar one that included the other > topics as well. > If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. > > best wishes, > > Wolf > > > Dr. Wolfgang Baer > > Research Director > > Nascent Systems Inc. > > tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 > > E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com > > On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > > John, > > You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers > within your text. > > Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello David and Albrecht, > > It was through the contact with this group that I > was finally able to understand the disconnect that > existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the > picture that others were obtaining from my use of > the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of > quantum mechanics and general relativity can be > traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do > not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer > is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity > which is the physical basis of the mysterious > fields. I combine all fields into a single > ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all > particles, fields and forces. > > *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, > quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search > and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either > the email or the attachment to my last post. > However, the paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New > Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the conference > presentation, used and defines the word > ?quantization?. This paper was attached to > previous posts, and is available at my website: > http://onlyspacetime.com/ > > *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with > the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? > and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the > universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I > will start my explanation of this concept by > giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? > particles and fields. There have been numerous > particle models from this group and others which > show an electron model as two balls orbiting > around a center of mass. Most of the group > identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht > names the two balls ?charges of the strong > force?. Both photons and charges of strong force > are just words. To be quantifiable, it is > necessary to describe the model of the universe > which gives the strong force or the > electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? > How much energy and energy density does one charge > of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume > smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in > radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong > force charge but just rotate faster? Are the > charges of strong force or photons made of any > other more basic component? > > > Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. > At some point a physical theory has to start. My model > starts with the assumption that a charge is an > "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits > exchange particles (in this point I follow the general > understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: > the electric ones which we are very familiar with, > having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not > so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two > signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of > the strong force only in configurations made of those > different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast > to the electric charges. > > The basic particles are composed of a collection of > charges of the strong force so that both basic > particles are bound to each other in a way that they > keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes > an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases > there is additionally an electric charge in the basic > particle. > > The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are > the shape of the strong field in the elementary > particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a > minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary > particle stable. The other setting is the strength of > this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the > electron because the electron is well known and > precisely measured. This field is then applicable for > all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also > applicable for the photon with the restriction that > there may be a correction factor caused by the fact > that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of > this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. > > The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described > by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula > resulting from my model, as with this assumption the > (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. > > As I wrote, the results of this model are very > precise, the prove is in practice only limited by > limitations of the measurement processes. > > I could go on with more questions until it is possible > to calculate the properties of an electron from the > answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable > details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s > Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more > than I have already done. For example, I cannot > calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine > structure constant. However, once I install these > into the model that I create, and combine this with > the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an > electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency > generates a muon with the correct electric field, > electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, > gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able > to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a > charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I > am able to test these models and show that they > generate both the correct energy density and generate > a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of > the spacetime field. > > In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and > of the other leptons) follows directly from the size > of the particle and the fact that the basic particle > move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the > relation of the electric force to the strong force. > This explanation follows very directly from this > model, however was also found by other theorists using > algebra of particle physics. > > Another result of the model is that Planck's constant > - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the > strong force. Also this is the result of other models > (however not of mainstream physics). > > My model starts with a quantifiable description of the > properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a > specific impedance which describes the properties of > waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude > and frequency of the waves in spacetime is > quantified. This combination allows the energy > density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees > with the energy density of zero point energy. The > particle models are then defined as ??units of > quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime > field. This model is quantifiable as to size, > structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate > of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is > possible to calculate the effect that such a structure > would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It > is possible to calculate the effect if the > spacetime-based particle model would have if the > coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To > get charge/e/, it is necessary to manually install the > fine structure constant. > > How do you get the value??for the angular momentum? > What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that > in your model the electric charge is a parameter > deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How > do you then get alpha? > > I personally have in so far a problem with all > considerations using spacetime as I have quite > thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea > of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation > was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And > in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize > that he was running into a lot of problems with this > assumption. He could solve these problems in general > by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still > causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected > by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which > do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). > > The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that > there should be boundary conditions which imply that > the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the > nonlinear component is calculated and treated as > separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s > gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, > effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). > > In my last post I have given an answer about the > factor of 10^120 difference between the observable > energy density of the universe and the non-observable > energy of the universe. This non-observable energy > density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, > zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb > shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in > general. This non-observable energy density is > responsible for the tremendously large impedance of > spacetime c^3 /G. Since I can also show how this > non-observable energy density is obtainable from > gravitational wave equations, it is necessary > for*you*to show how all these effects can be achieved > without spacetime being a single field with this > non-observable energy density. In fact, the name > non-observable only applied to direct observation. The > indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis > of the universe and therefore is the ?background > noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not > directly observable because we can only detect > differences in energy. The > constants/c,//G/,/?/and/?_o /testify that spacetime is > not an empty void. > > Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point > energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume > physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest > argument in favour of this energy is its use in > Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I > have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that > his formalism has good results. But that he has no > physical understanding why it is successful. In my > understanding of the development of physics this is a > weak point. > > The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed > energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by > present main stream physics. Those representatives > would have all reason to find a solution to keep > present QM clean. But they are not able to. This > causes me some concern. > > The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light > what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but > it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do > with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is > as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's > constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field > constant of the strong force (any force has to be > described by a field constant); and/?_o /is the field > constant of the electric force with a similar background. > > If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles > have a speed limit of/c/? For a thought experiment, > suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite > directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of > 0.75/c/relative to the earth. The earth bound > observer sees them separating at 1.5/c/but the rules > of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship > observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at > only 0.96/c/. How is this possible if spacetime is an > empty void. My model of the universe answers this > because all particles, fields and forces are also made > of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve > Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and > clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is > filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything > is made of the single component. The universe is only > spacetime. > > If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite > direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds > and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer > in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed > of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c > (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact > that the measurement tools accessible for the observer > in the ship are changed and run differently at this > high speed. The reason for these changes is for time > dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. > For contraction it is the contraction of fields at > motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and > which was already known before Einstein). In addition > when the speed of another object is to be measured > several clocks are to be used positioned along the > measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized > in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. > These phenomena together cause the measurement result > < c. You find these considerations in papers and books > about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, > following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume > Einstein's spacetime. > > John M. > > Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take > a lot of time, I am afraid. > > Albrecht > > *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] > *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM > *To:*John Macken > ; 'Nature of Light and > Particles - General > Discussion' > > *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers > > Hello John, > > great that you have looked so deeply into the model > which I have presented. Thank you. > > There are some questions which I can answer quite > easily. I think that this model in fact explains > several points just in contrast to main stream > physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an > example) is a point-like object without any internal > structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? > How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be > explained? The position of main stream physics is: > That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum > mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained > shows how necessary QM is. > > In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a > structure like in the model presented, these > parameters can be explained in a classical way, and > this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but > has precise quantitative results. > > To your questions in detail: > The fact of two basic particles is necessary to > explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the > conservation of momentum. A single object (as > point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are > composed of charges of the strong force. In this model > the strong force is assumed to be the universal force > in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a > fundamental object in the scope of this model. There > are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of > forces in our world, the strong one and the electric > one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but > has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric > circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a > refraction process, which is so a side effect of the > other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved > spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, > Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. > > The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary > particle are configured in a way that at a certain > distance there is a potential minimum and in this way > the distance between the basic particles is enforced. > So, this field has attracting and repulsive > components. Outside the elementary particle the > attracting forces dominate to make the particle a > stable one. And those field parts outside have an > opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are > orbiting each other, the outside field is an > alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field > propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is > described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the > assumptions of de Broglie. > > With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at > c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, > magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically > correctly without further assumptions. > > This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual > particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are > anyway very speculative because not directly > observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of > the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of > 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached > to your mail. > > The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the > assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a > force is realized by exchange particles. The density > of exchange particles and so the strength of the field > diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. > > So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about > your objections of further questions. > > Best regards > Albrecht > > > Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello Albrecht and All, > > I have attached a one page addition that I will > make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation > of my model of the spacetime field. It has been > very helpful to me to interact with this group > because I now understand better the key stumbling > block for some scientists to accept my thesis. > Therefore I have written the attached introduction > to ease the reader of my book into my model. > > *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We agree on > several points which include the size of the > electron and there is a similarity in the > explanation of gravity. The key points of > disagreement are the same as I have with the rest > of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental > particle is not really an explanation. You > substitute a fundamental particle such as an > electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made > any progress or did we just double the problem? > What is your basic particles made of? What is the > physics behind the force of attraction between the > particles? What is the physics behind an electric > field? How does your model create de Broglie > waves? How does your model create a gravitational > field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the > Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation > from your model? > > These might seem like unfair questions, but my > model does all of these things. All it requires is > the reader accept the fact that the vacuum > possesses activity which can be characterized as a > type of energy density that is not observable (no > rest mass or momentum). This is no different that > accepting that QED calculations should be believed > when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point > energy really exists. > > *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but > I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just > happen to be the first person that I contrast to > my model. I am actually happy to discuss the > scientific details in a less confrontational way. > I just wanted to make an initial point. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM > *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > > *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers > > Dear John Macken, > > I would like to answer a specific topic in your > mail below. You write "... would have particular > relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is > needed to give inertia to fermions". > > We should not overlook that even mainstream > physicists working on elementary particles admit > that the Higgs theory is not able to explain > inertia. I give you as a reference: > > >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics > G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , > > which has the result that the Higgs field, which > causes inertia according to the theory, is by at > least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain > the mass of the elementary particles. (Another > weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does > not tell us the mass of any elementary particle > even if all other parameters are known.) > > As you may remember, in our meeting I have > presented a model explaining inertia which does > not only work as a general idea but provides very > precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass > is classically deduced from the size of a > particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, > but here the verification is more difficult, due > to the lack of measurements. In addition I have > shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) > mass of photons, if the size of a photon is > related to its wavelength. > > You may find details in the proceedings of our San > Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: > > www.ag-physics.org/rmass > > www.ag-physics.org/electron > . > > You may also find the sites by Google search > entering the string "origin of mass". You will > find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it > has constantly been during the past 12 years. > > If you have any questions about it, please ask me. > I will be happy about any discussion. > > With best regards > Albrecht Giese > > > > Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: > > Martin, > > I wanted to remind you that I think that you > should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to > include the mathematical proof that confined > light has exactly the same inertia as > particles with equal energy. Accelerating a > reflecting box causes different photon > pressure which results in a net inertial > force. I already reference your Light Is > Heavy article in my book, but expanding the > article would be even better. An expanded > article would have particular relevance to the > concept that the Higgs field is needed to give > inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not > needed to give inertia to confined light. > Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the > correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at > relativistic conditions. I have not seen a > proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the > correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to > fermions. Any particle model that includes > either a confined photon or confined waves in > spacetime propagating at the speed of light > gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same > principles as confined light in a reflecting box. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM > *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General > Discussion > > *Subject:*[General] research papers > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found on > Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the most recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy > of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability current as > electromagnetic 4-current from topological > EM fields > > Very 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software > auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf > Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf > Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the > Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List > atrichgauthier at gmail.com > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Fri Sep 25 06:06:09 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:06:09 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> Message-ID: <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > Hello Albrecht, > Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the > Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the > reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the > generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin > 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases > by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating > a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model > could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength > hbar/mc. > all the best, > Richard > >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > > wrote: >> >> Dear Richard, >> >> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. >> >> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the >> electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the >> magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x >> 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. >> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined >> the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There >> Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also >> applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. >> It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton >> wavelength of the electron. >> >> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly >> the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation >> value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius >> of the orbits of the basic particles. >> >> Thank you again and best wishes >> Albrecht >> >> >> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >>> This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek >>> at >>> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is >>> worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the >>> electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of >>> some of our electron models. >>> Richard >>> >>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not >>>> available on the web sight. >>>> I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. >>>> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. >>>> >>>> best wishes, >>>> >>>> Wolf >>>> >>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer >>>> Research Director >>>> Nascent Systems Inc. >>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 >>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com >>>> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >>>>> >>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>>>>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally >>>>>> able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of >>>>>> vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my >>>>>> use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum >>>>>> mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that >>>>>> fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they >>>>>> are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity >>>>>> which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine >>>>>> all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of >>>>>> all particles, fields and forces. >>>>>> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and >>>>>> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word >>>>>> ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last >>>>>> post. However, the paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New >>>>>> Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, >>>>>> used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached >>>>>> to previous posts, and is available at my website: >>>>>> http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>>>>> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the >>>>>> clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its >>>>>> derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? >>>>>> particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this >>>>>> concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? >>>>>> particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models >>>>>> from this group and others which show an electron model as two >>>>>> balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group >>>>>> identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two >>>>>> balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of >>>>>> strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary >>>>>> to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong >>>>>> force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How >>>>>> much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force >>>>>> have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton >>>>>> wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong >>>>>> force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong >>>>>> force or photons made of any other more basic component? >>>>> >>>>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some >>>>> point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the >>>>> assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly >>>>> point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow >>>>> the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: >>>>> the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two >>>>> signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday >>>>> physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find >>>>> the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of >>>>> those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the >>>>> electric charges. >>>>> >>>>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the >>>>> strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other >>>>> in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance >>>>> characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases >>>>> there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >>>>> >>>>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of >>>>> the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined >>>>> an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the >>>>> elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of >>>>> this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron >>>>> because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This >>>>> field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all >>>>> quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction >>>>> that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the >>>>> photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed >>>>> of (maybe) two other particles. >>>>> >>>>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its >>>>> wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my >>>>> model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is >>>>> the correct result. >>>>> >>>>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove >>>>> is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement >>>>> processes. >>>>>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to >>>>>> calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far >>>>>> both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a >>>>>> connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not >>>>>> demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I >>>>>> cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine >>>>>> structure constant. However, once I install these into the model >>>>>> that I create, and combine this with the properties of the >>>>>> spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s >>>>>> Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric >>>>>> field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational >>>>>> force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion >>>>>> of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field >>>>>> and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they >>>>>> generate both the correct energy density and generate a black >>>>>> hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >>>>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the >>>>> other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and >>>>> the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure >>>>> constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong >>>>> force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, >>>>> however was also found by other theorists using algebra of >>>>> particle physics. >>>>> >>>>> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied >>>>> by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the >>>>> result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>>>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties >>>>>> of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which >>>>>> describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. >>>>>> Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is >>>>>> quantified. This combination allows the energy density of >>>>>> spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy >>>>>> density of zero point energy. The particle models are then >>>>>> defined as ??units of quantized angular momentum existing in the >>>>>> spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, >>>>>> structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and >>>>>> proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the >>>>>> effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume >>>>>> of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the >>>>>> spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling >>>>>> constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge/e/, it is >>>>>> necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >>>>> How do you get the value??for the angular momentum? What is the >>>>> calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the >>>>> electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which >>>>> ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >>>>> >>>>> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations >>>>> using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how >>>>> Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His >>>>> main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. >>>>> And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he >>>>> was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could >>>>> solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But >>>>> this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly >>>>> neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do >>>>> not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >>>>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should >>>>>> be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime >>>>>> should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated >>>>>> and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the >>>>>> particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, >>>>>> effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>>>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10^120 >>>>>> difference between the observable energy density of the universe >>>>>> and the non-observable energy of the universe. This >>>>>> non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED >>>>>> calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb >>>>>> shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. >>>>>> This non-observable energy density is responsible for the >>>>>> tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 /G. Since I can >>>>>> also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable >>>>>> from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for*you*to >>>>>> show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime >>>>>> being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In >>>>>> fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. >>>>>> The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the >>>>>> universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the >>>>>> universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because >>>>>> we can only detect differences in energy. The >>>>>> constants/c,//G/,/?/and/?_o /testify that spacetime is not an >>>>>> empty void. >>>>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And >>>>> I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be >>>>> observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its >>>>> use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have >>>>> a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has >>>>> good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is >>>>> successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this >>>>> is a weak point. >>>>> >>>>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is >>>>> taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream >>>>> physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a >>>>> solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This >>>>> causes me some concern. >>>>> >>>>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever >>>>> the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit >>>>> speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the >>>>> gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity >>>>> itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the >>>>> field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described >>>>> by a field constant); and/?_o /is the field constant of the >>>>> electric force with a similar background. >>>>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed >>>>>> limit of/c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two >>>>>> spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate >>>>>> until they reach a speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. The >>>>>> earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5/c/but the rules >>>>>> of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer >>>>>> seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96/c/. How is >>>>>> this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the >>>>>> universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces >>>>>> are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve >>>>>> Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. >>>>>> None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole >>>>>> waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single >>>>>> component. The universe is only spacetime. >>>>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the >>>>> observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a >>>>> result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures >>>>> the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less >>>>> then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that >>>>> the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are >>>>> changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for >>>>> these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in >>>>> elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of >>>>> fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and >>>>> which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the >>>>> speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be >>>>> used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are >>>>> de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. >>>>> These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You >>>>> find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian >>>>> interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no >>>>> reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>>>>> John M. >>>>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of >>>>> time, I am afraid. >>>>> >>>>> Albrecht >>>>>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] >>>>>> *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>>>>> *To:*John Macken; 'Nature of Light and Particles >>>>>> - General Discussion' >>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello John, >>>>>> >>>>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have >>>>>> presented. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think >>>>>> that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast >>>>>> to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as >>>>>> an example) is a point-like object without any internal >>>>>> structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can >>>>>> the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The >>>>>> position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but >>>>>> is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be >>>>>> explained shows how necessary QM is. >>>>>> >>>>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like >>>>>> in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a >>>>>> classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative >>>>>> one but has precise quantitative results. >>>>>> >>>>>> To your questions in detail: >>>>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact >>>>>> of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A >>>>>> single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic >>>>>> particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this >>>>>> model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in >>>>>> our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental >>>>>> object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges >>>>>> according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one >>>>>> and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force >>>>>> but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric >>>>>> circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction >>>>>> process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by >>>>>> the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, >>>>>> and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>>>>> >>>>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are >>>>>> configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a >>>>>> potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic >>>>>> particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and >>>>>> repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the >>>>>> attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And >>>>>> those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the >>>>>> basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an >>>>>> alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field >>>>>> propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the >>>>>> Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and >>>>>> subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, >>>>>> spin result from it numerically correctly without further >>>>>> assumptions. >>>>>> >>>>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. >>>>>> Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very >>>>>> speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of >>>>>> the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the >>>>>> discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper >>>>>> attached to your mail. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption >>>>>> (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by >>>>>> exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the >>>>>> strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>>>>> >>>>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your >>>>>> objections of further questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Albrecht >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>>>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my >>>>>> book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the >>>>>> spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact >>>>>> with this group because I now understand better the key >>>>>> stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. >>>>>> Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease >>>>>> the reader of my book into my model. >>>>>> *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We agree on several >>>>>> points which include the size of the electron and there is a >>>>>> similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of >>>>>> disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the >>>>>> group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not >>>>>> really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle >>>>>> such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made >>>>>> any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your >>>>>> basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force >>>>>> of attraction between the particles? What is the physics >>>>>> behind an electric field? How does your model create de >>>>>> Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational >>>>>> field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and >>>>>> Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>>>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all >>>>>> of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the >>>>>> fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be >>>>>> characterized as a type of energy density that is not >>>>>> observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different >>>>>> that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when >>>>>> they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really >>>>>> exists. >>>>>> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have >>>>>> decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the >>>>>> first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually >>>>>> happy to discuss the scientific details in a less >>>>>> confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>>>>> John M. >>>>>> *From:*General >>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >>>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese >>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>>>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>>>> Dear John Macken, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. >>>>>> You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept >>>>>> that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>>>>> >>>>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists >>>>>> working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory >>>>>> is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>>>>> >>>>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of >>>>>> Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>>>>> >>>>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes >>>>>> inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of >>>>>> magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary >>>>>> particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs >>>>>> theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle >>>>>> even if all other parameters are known.) >>>>>> >>>>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model >>>>>> explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea >>>>>> but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. >>>>>> The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. >>>>>> It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the >>>>>> verification is more difficult, due to the lack of >>>>>> measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also >>>>>> explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a >>>>>> photon is related to its wavelength. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego >>>>>> meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>>>>> >>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>>>>> >>>>>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the >>>>>> string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 >>>>>> of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 >>>>>> years. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be >>>>>> happy about any discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> With best regards >>>>>> Albrecht Giese >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin, >>>>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should >>>>>> update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the >>>>>> mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the >>>>>> same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating >>>>>> a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which >>>>>> results in a net inertial force. I already reference >>>>>> your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the >>>>>> article would be even better. An expanded article would >>>>>> have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs >>>>>> field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs >>>>>> field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. >>>>>> Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct >>>>>> inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic >>>>>> conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field >>>>>> gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic >>>>>> energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes >>>>>> either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime >>>>>> propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and >>>>>> kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light >>>>>> in a reflecting box. >>>>>> John M. >>>>>> *From:*General >>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >>>>>> Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der >>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General >>>>>> Discussion >>>>>> *Subject:*[General] research papers >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>>>>> >>>>>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>>>>> >>>>>> * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>>>>> * Quantum mechanical probability current as >>>>>> electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>>>>> >>>>>> Very 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 >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> 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 atphys at a-giese.de >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren >>>>>> gepr?ft. >>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Avast logo >>>>> >>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>> www.avast.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com >>>>> >>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of >>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com >>>> >>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Avast logo >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Fri Sep 25 09:04:52 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 18:04:52 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com>, <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Fri Sep 25 09:44:36 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:44:36 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com>, <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> Message-ID: Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" > An: "Richard Gauthier" >, phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ 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 phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Fri Sep 25 09:49:08 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 18:49:08 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <56050EC1.2040103@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> , <56050EC1.2040103@a-giese.de> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Fri Sep 25 10:16:21 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:16:21 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: =?UTF-8?Q?<8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>=20<002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com>=09<55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de>=20<003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com>=09<55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de>=20<007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com>=09<55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de>=20<55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com>=20=20<56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de>=20<9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com>, =20<560546C1.80203@a-giese.de>=20, =20?= Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.van.der.mark at philips.com Fri Sep 25 10:56:38 2015 From: martin.van.der.mark at philips.com (Mark, Martin van der) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:56:38 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: =?UTF-8?Q?<8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>=20<002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com>=09<55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de>=20<003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com>=09<55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de>=20<007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com>=09<55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de>=20<55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com>=20=20<56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de>=20<9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com>, =20<560546C1.80203@a-giese.de>=20, =20?=, Message-ID: <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. Regards, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de" > het volgende geschreven: Dear Martin, Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" > An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "phys at a-giese.de" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" An: "Richard Gauthier" , phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ 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 phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf at nascentinc.com Fri Sep 25 12:51:44 2015 From: wolf at nascentinc.com (Wolfgang Baer) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:51:44 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <56050EC1.2040103@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <5605A5D0.4020901@nascentinc.com> chandra I read the URL http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb I think he idea that gravity and inertial mass might be different and perhaps velocity, which effects kinetic energy might be related to inertial fields due to distant matter (Mach's Principle) has not been properly taken into account in Special Relativity However the authors simple equations varying G rather than "m" seems a bit simplistic and certainly could not be called a derivation A lot more development needs to be done to connect this to physics Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/25/2015 9:49 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote: > Gentlemen: > > Regarding "time dilation," many consider the situation altogether > unclear---not without reason. > > The argument about mesons seen at sea level seems not to take account > of the cosmic rays reaching the lower atomosphere before initiang the > chain pi->mu->e. At CERN, the 10 or so detectors had to be put > inside the ring (so I'm told) for lack of space and the results > recalibrated theoretically to compensate! Thus, there was enough > wiggle room here to protect reputation and !! funding. > > Clocks-around-the-workd has been criticized for two reasons: 1) the > data was post-selected (i.e., some thrown out becasue it "obviously" > didn't fit) and 2) the stability of atomic clocks then (probably now > too) was at least two order of magnitude too low for the experiment. > Also note, this experiment was funded by the Navy resulting in the > fact that the raw data was classified! This may still be the case > although I think I remember hearing that at least a portion was > sprung by the Irishman who was then first to discover and point out > the data manipulation. > > At the end of the day, perhaps the best account of the two SR effects > can be called: "Minkowski perspective." Which means that no objects > are LF contracted, nor are clocks (time intervals) dilated; rather > just their reports to observers in different inertial frames get the > info so as to form an aborrated "virtual image," which is modified, > just like objects seen from a distance appear smaller in Newtonian > physics. > > Even Einstein always said: "As SEEN from the observer's (stationary) > frame" regarding all supposed LFcontrated displacements and dilated > intervals. > > ciao, Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 11:07 Uhr *Von:* "Dr. > Albrecht Giese" *An:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" > , "Nature of Light and Particles - > General Discussion" , > "phys at a-giese.de" *Betreff:* Re: [General] research > papers > > Regarding Special Relativity: You mean that the time dilation is an > "at hoc" assumption? The dilation is - easily visible; one can move > a clock forth and back and compare it later to another clock which > was at rest all the time. The clock in motion is then retarded. This > fact is used (and so also proven) at the operation of GPS > satellites. - there are a lot of indications that in elementary > particles there is a permanent motion at c (speed of light), > "zitterbewegung". This is a simple physical reason for dilation. It > does not even need a relativity principle. > > > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish > to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles > General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Fri Sep 25 16:48:49 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 01:48:49 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> References: =?UTF-8?Q?<8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>=20<002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com>=09<55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de>=20<003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com>=09<55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de>=20<007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com>=09<55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de>=20<55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com>=20=20<56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de>=20<9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com>, =20=20<560546C1.80203@a-giese.de>=20, =20=20, =20, =20<92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com>?= Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu Fri Sep 25 23:50:18 2015 From: chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu (Roychoudhuri, Chandra) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 06:50:18 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <5605A5D0.4020901@nascentinc.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <56050EC1.2040103@a-giese.de> , <5605A5D0.4020901@nascentinc.com> Message-ID: Thanks Wolf! I will read more when I get back. I am in Spain (ICFO & IONS). Chandra. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S? 5 ACTIVE?, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Wolfgang Baer Date: 09/25/2015 9:51 PM (GMT+01:00) To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers chandra I read the URL http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb I think he idea that gravity and inertial mass might be different and perhaps velocity, which effects kinetic energy might be related to inertial fields due to distant matter (Mach's Principle) has not been properly taken into account in Special Relativity However the authors simple equations varying G rather than "m" seems a bit simplistic and certainly could not be called a derivation A lot more development needs to be done to connect this to physics Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/25/2015 9:49 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote: > Gentlemen: > > Regarding "time dilation," many consider the situation altogether > unclear---not without reason. > > The argument about mesons seen at sea level seems not to take account > of the cosmic rays reaching the lower atomosphere before initiang the > chain pi->mu->e. At CERN, the 10 or so detectors had to be put > inside the ring (so I'm told) for lack of space and the results > recalibrated theoretically to compensate! Thus, there was enough > wiggle room here to protect reputation and !! funding. > > Clocks-around-the-workd has been criticized for two reasons: 1) the > data was post-selected (i.e., some thrown out becasue it "obviously" > didn't fit) and 2) the stability of atomic clocks then (probably now > too) was at least two order of magnitude too low for the experiment. > Also note, this experiment was funded by the Navy resulting in the > fact that the raw data was classified! This may still be the case > although I think I remember hearing that at least a portion was > sprung by the Irishman who was then first to discover and point out > the data manipulation. > > At the end of the day, perhaps the best account of the two SR effects > can be called: "Minkowski perspective." Which means that no objects > are LF contracted, nor are clocks (time intervals) dilated; rather > just their reports to observers in different inertial frames get the > info so as to form an aborrated "virtual image," which is modified, > just like objects seen from a distance appear smaller in Newtonian > physics. > > Even Einstein always said: "As SEEN from the observer's (stationary) > frame" regarding all supposed LFcontrated displacements and dilated > intervals. > > ciao, Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 11:07 Uhr *Von:* "Dr. > Albrecht Giese" *An:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" > , "Nature of Light and Particles - > General Discussion" , > "phys at a-giese.de" *Betreff:* Re: [General] research > papers > > Regarding Special Relativity: You mean that the time dilation is an > "at hoc" assumption? The dilation is - easily visible; one can move > a clock forth and back and compare it later to another clock which > was at rest all the time. The clock in motion is then retarded. This > fact is used (and so also proven) at the operation of GPS > satellites. - there are a lot of indications that in elementary > particles there is a permanent motion at c (speed of light), > "zitterbewegung". This is a simple physical reason for dilation. It > does not even need a relativity principle. > > > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish > to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles > General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sat Sep 26 07:44:50 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:44:50 +0100 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <001b01d0f869$e73f1530$b5bd3f90$@btconnect.com> Albrecht: You should think about replacing your two particles with two loops. Regards John D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 25 September 2015 14:06 To: Richard Gauthier ; phys at a-giese.de Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03 &tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? >From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ 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 phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Sat Sep 26 07:45:47 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:45:47 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> Message-ID: <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> Hi Martin, Al, and all, thank you all for your contributions. _Regarding the size of the electron:_ As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? _Regarding dilation:_ There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. Best wishes Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de: > Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good > idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a > point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently > moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? > Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read > and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them > all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of > attention because it predicted something new to be observed > empirically. Did it? > BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it > (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any > case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of > Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor > John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not > intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have > hundreds of unread papers available. > Best, Al > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr > *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" > *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > > *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers > Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am > refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. > Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring > you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other > doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. > Regards, Martin > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > > Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de" > het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Martin, > Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some > "shoot'n from the hip." > You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based > on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe > not. > The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get > close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close > enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to > experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant > motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and > therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around > (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must > manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure > within the scattering cross-section. Why not? > Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks > (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary > particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its > induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the > universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. > Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all > other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual > charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static > approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the > virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light > speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like > Albrecht's pairs. > I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that > you all took such consideration into account. > Best, Al > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr > *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" > *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > , "phys at a-giese.de" > > *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers > > Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, > > In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is > explained briefly but adequately. > > Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not > want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is > a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not > sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person > you are Albrecht. > > The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton > wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in > ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the > electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to > be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even > the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, > its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. > Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the > electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined > with the resolving power at that high energy make that a > Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only > if it is of electromagnetic origin. > > The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, > there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. > > Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly > it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is > refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are > a waste of time and energy. > > 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 *af.kracklauer at web.de > *Sent:* vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 > *To:* phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > > *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Gentelmen: > > Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of > the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My > best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering > experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists > in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size > whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its > Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM > (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what > folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps > often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter > volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also > have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know > how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. > (Albrectht?) > > Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr > *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" > *An:* "Richard Gauthier" , phys at a-giese.de > *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > > *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers > > Hello Richard, > > according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron > is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering > experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity > of influence. > > As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) > assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the > electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified > with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict > with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. > > I have the impression that several of us (including me) have > models of the electron which assume some extension roughly > compatible with the QM calculations. > > Some details of my model related to this question: Here the > electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which > orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force > inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the > reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows > with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases > by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by > this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain > weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built > by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now > Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - > superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the > electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of > measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This > is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no > mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative > calculation of this process which I presently do not have. > > All the best to you > Albrecht > > Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > > Hello Albrecht, > > Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to > the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is > 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is > the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s > trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for > a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of > gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more > detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model > could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton > wavelength hbar/mc. > > all the best, > > Richard > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. > > He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size > for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty > relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The > result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the > Compton wavelength of the electron. > This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has > determined the size of the electron using the Dirac > function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the > "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the > uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. > It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words > the Compton wavelength of the electron. > > In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which > is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it > is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and > Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the > basic particles. > > Thank you again and best wishes > Albrecht > > Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > > This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by > Frank Wilczek at > http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is > worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the > size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is > roughly in the range of some of our electron models. > > Richard > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > wrote: > > I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that > may be the one not available on the web sight. > I was looking for a similar one that included the > other topics as well. > If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading > from paper. > > best wishes, > > Wolf > > Dr. Wolfgang Baer > > Research Director > > Nascent Systems Inc. > > tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 > > E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com > > On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > > John, > > You wrote a long text, so I will enter my > answers within your text. > > Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello David and Albrecht, > > It was through the contact with this group > that I was finally able to understand the > disconnect that existed between my idea of > vacuum energy and the picture that others > were obtaining from my use of the term > ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum > mechanics and general relativity can be > traced to the fact that fields exist and > yet we do not have a clear idea of what > they are. My answer is that we live > within a sea of vacuum activity which is > the physical basis of the mysterious > fields. I combine all fields into a single > ?spacetime field? which is the basis of > all particles, fields and forces. > > *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, > quantifying and quantizing. I did a word > search and I did not use the word > ?quantizing? in either the email or the > attachment to my last post. However, the > paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New > Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the > conference presentation, used and defines > the word ?quantization?. This paper was > attached to previous posts, and is > available at my website: > http://onlyspacetime.com/ > > *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you > with the clarification for David of the > word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I > claim that my model of the universe > ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will > start my explanation of this concept by > giving examples of models which do not > ?quantify? particles and fields. There > have been numerous particle models from > this group and others which show an > electron model as two balls orbiting > around a center of mass. Most of the > group identifies these balls as photons > but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges > of the strong force?. Both photons and > charges of strong force are just words. To > be quantifiable, it is necessary to > describe the model of the universe which > gives the strong force or the > electromagnetic force. What exactly are > these? How much energy and energy density > does one charge of strong force have? Can > a photon occupy a volume smaller than a > reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does > a muon have the same basic strong force > charge but just rotate faster? Are the > charges of strong force or photons made of > any other more basic component? > > > Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my > model. At some point a physical theory has to > start. My model starts with the assumption > that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so > possibly point-like, which emits exchange > particles (in this point I follow the general > understanding of QM). There are two types of > charges: the electric ones which we are very > familiar with, having two signs, and the > strong ones, which are not so obvious in > everyday physics; they also have two signs. In > the physical nature we find the charges of the > strong force only in configurations made of > those different signs, never isolated. This is > in contrast to the electric charges. > > The basic particles are composed of a > collection of charges of the strong force so > that both basic particles are bound to each > other in a way that they keep a certain > distance. This distance characterizes an > elementary particle. In several (or most) > cases there is additionally an electric charge > in the basic particle. > > The two parameters I have to set - or to find > - are the shape of the strong field in the > elementary particle. Here I have defined an > equation describing a minimum multi-pole field > to make the elementary particle stable. The > other setting is the strength of this field. > This strength can be found e.g. using the > electron because the electron is well known > and precisely measured. This field is then > applicable for all leptons as well as for all > quarks. It is also applicable for the photon > with the restriction that there may be a > correction factor caused by the fact that the > photon is not fundamental in the sense of this > model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. > > The size of the photon is (at least roughly) > described by its wavelength. This follows from > the mass formula resulting from my model, as > with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the > photon is the correct result. > > As I wrote, the results of this model are very > precise, the prove is in practice only limited > by limitations of the measurement processes. > > I could go on with more questions until it is > possible to calculate the properties of an > electron from the answers. So far both models > lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a > connection to the particle?s Compton > frequency. I am not demanding anything more > than I have already done. For example, I > cannot calculate the electron?s Compton > frequency or the fine structure constant. > However, once I install these into the model > that I create, and combine this with the > properties of the spacetime field, then I get > an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton > frequency generates a muon with the correct > electric field, electrostatic force, curvature > of spacetime, gravitational force and de > Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the > distortion of spacetime produced by a charged > particle, an electric field and a photon. I am > able to test these models and show that they > generate both the correct energy density and > generate a black hole when we reach the > distortion limits of the spacetime field. > > In my model the Compton frequency of the > electron (and of the other leptons) follows > directly from the size of the particle and the > fact that the basic particle move with c. The > fine structure constant tells us the relation > of the electric force to the strong force. > This explanation follows very directly from > this model, however was also found by other > theorists using algebra of particle physics. > > Another result of the model is that Planck's > constant - multiplied by c - is the field > constant of the strong force. Also this is the > result of other models (however not of > mainstream physics). > > My model starts with a quantifiable > description of the properties of spacetime. > The spacetime model has a specific impedance > which describes the properties of waves that > can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and > frequency of the waves in spacetime is > quantified. This combination allows the energy > density of spacetime to be calculated and this > agrees with the energy density of zero point > energy. The particle models are then defined > as ??units of quantized angular momentum > existing in the spacetime field. This model > is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, > etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and > proper volume is being modulated, it is > possible to calculate the effect that such a > structure would have on the surrounding volume > of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the > effect if the spacetime-based particle model > would have if the coupling constant was equal > to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge/e/, it is > necessary to manually install the fine > structure constant. > > How do you get the value??for the angular > momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - > I understand that in your model the electric > charge is a parameter deduced from other > facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then > get alpha? > > I personally have in so far a problem with all > considerations using spacetime as I have quite > thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to > the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His > main motivation was that he wanted in any case > to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with > Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was > running into a lot of problems with this > assumption. He could solve these problems in > general by his "curved spacetime". But this > concept still causes logical conflicts which > are eagerly neglected by the followers of > Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist > in the Lorentzian way of relativity). > > The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply > that there should be boundary conditions which > imply that the waves in spacetime should be > nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is > calculated and treated as separate waves, the > characteristics of the particle?s > gravitational field are obtained (correct: > curvature, effect on the rate of time, force > and energy density). > > In my last post I have given an answer about > the factor of 10^120 difference between the > observable energy density of the universe and > the non-observable energy of the universe. > This non-observable energy density is > absolutely necessary for QED calculations, > zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, > Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum > mechanics in general. This non-observable > energy density is responsible for the > tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 > /G. Since I can also show how this > non-observable energy density is obtainable > from gravitational wave equations, it is > necessary for*you*to show how all these > effects can be achieved without spacetime > being a single field with this non-observable > energy density. In fact, the name > non-observable only applied to direct > observation. The indirect evidence is > everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe > and therefore is the ?background noise? of the > universe. For this reason it is not directly > observable because we can only detect > differences in energy. The > constants/c,//G/,/?/and/?_o /testify that > spacetime is not an empty void. > > Up to now I did not find any necessity for > zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous > way to assume physical facts which cannot be > observed. The greatest argument in favour of > this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. > But is there really no other way? I have a > lecture of Feynman here where he states that > his formalism has good results. But that he > has no physical understanding why it is > successful. In my understanding of the > development of physics this is a weak point. > > The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and > observed energy is taken as a great and > unresolved problem by present main stream > physics. Those representatives would have all > reason to find a solution to keep present QM > clean. But they are not able to. This causes > me some concern. > > The constants you have listed: c is the speed > of light what ever the reason for it is. (I > have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) > But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the > gravitational constant which is as little > understood as gravity itself. Planck's > constant I have explained, it is (with c) the > field constant of the strong force (any force > has to be described by a field constant); > and/?_o /is the field constant of the electric > force with a similar background. > > If spacetime was an empty void, why should > particles have a speed limit of/c/? For a > thought experiment, suppose that two > spaceships leave earth going opposite > directions and accelerate until they reach a > speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. The > earth bound observer sees them separating at > 1.5/c/but the rules of relativistic addition > of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing > the other spaceship moving away at only > 0.96/c/. How is this possible if spacetime is > an empty void. My model of the universe > answers this because all particles, fields and > forces are also made of the spacetime field > and they combine to achieve Lorentz > transformations which affects ruler length and > clocks. None of this can happen unless > spacetime is filled with dipole waves in > spacetime and everything is made of the single > component. The universe is only spacetime. > > If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite > direction, the observer at rest may add these > speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? > If an observer in one of the spaceships > measures the relative speed of the other > spaceship, the result will be less then c (as > you write it). The reason is the well known > fact that the measurement tools accessible for > the observer in the ship are changed and run > differently at this high speed. The reason for > these changes is for time dilation the > internal speed c in elementary particles. For > contraction it is the contraction of fields at > motion which is a fact independent of > relativity (and which was already known before > Einstein). In addition when the speed of > another object is to be measured several > clocks are to be used positioned along the > measurement section. These clocks are > de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of > the observer at rest. These phenomena together > cause the measurement result < c. You find > these considerations in papers and books about > the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. > So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to > assume Einstein's spacetime. > > John M. > > Perhaps I should read your book. But that > chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. > > Albrecht > > *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese > [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] > *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM > *To:*John Macken; 'Nature of > Light and Particles - General > Discussion' > *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers > > Hello John, > > great that you have looked so deeply into the > model which I have presented. Thank you. > > There are some questions which I can answer > quite easily. I think that this model in fact > explains several points just in contrast to > main stream physics. In standard physics the > electron (just as an example) is a point-like > object without any internal structure. So, how > can a magnetic moment be explained? How can > the spin be explained? How can the mass be > explained? The position of main stream physics > is: That cannot be explained but is subject to > quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot > be explained shows how necessary QM is. > > In contrast, if the electron is assumed to > have a structure like in the model presented, > these parameters can be explained in a > classical way, and this explanation is not > merely a qualitative one but has precise > quantitative results. > > To your questions in detail: > The fact of two basic particles is necessary > to explain the fact of an oscillation and to > fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single > object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The > basic particles are composed of charges of the > strong force. In this model the strong force > is assumed to be the universal force in our > world effective on all particles. A charge is > a fundamental object in the scope of this > model. There are two kinds of charges > according to the two kinds of forces in our > world, the strong one and the electric one. > The weak force is in fact the strong force but > has a smaller coupling constant caused by > geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a > force at all but a refraction process, which > is so a side effect of the other forces. And, > by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. > This is not necessary, and besides of this, > Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. > > The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an > elementary particle are configured in a way > that at a certain distance there is a > potential minimum and in this way the distance > between the basic particles is enforced. So, > this field has attracting and repulsive > components. Outside the elementary particle > the attracting forces dominate to make the > particle a stable one. And those field parts > outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the > basic particles are orbiting each other, the > outside field is an alternating field (of the > strong forth). If this field propagates, it is > builds a wave. This wave is described by the > Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the > assumptions of de Broglie. > > With the assumption of two basic particles > orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the > parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result > from it numerically correctly without further > assumptions. > > This model does not need any vacuum energy or > virtual particles. Those are simply not > necessary and they are anyway very speculative > because not directly observable. And in the > case of the vacuum energy of the universe we > are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 > which you also mention in your paper attached > to your mail. > > The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the > assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) > that a force is realized by exchange > particles. The density of exchange particles > and so the strength of the field diminishes by > 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. > > So John, this is my position. Now I am curious > about your objections of further questions. > > Best regards > Albrecht > > Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello Albrecht and All, > > I have attached a one page addition that I > will make to my book. It is a preliminary > explanation of my model of the spacetime > field. It has been very helpful to me to > interact with this group because I now > understand better the key stumbling block > for some scientists to accept my thesis. > Therefore I have written the attached > introduction to ease the reader of my book > into my model. > > *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We > agree on several points which include the > size of the electron and there is a > similarity in the explanation of gravity. > The key points of disagreement are the > same as I have with the rest of the group. > Your explanation of a fundamental particle > is not really an explanation. You > substitute a fundamental particle such as > an electron with two ?basic particles?. > Have we made any progress or did we just > double the problem? What is your basic > particles made of? What is the physics > behind the force of attraction between the > particles? What is the physics behind an > electric field? How does your model create > de Broglie waves? How does your model > create a gravitational field (curved > spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law > and Newtonian gravitational equation from > your model? > > These might seem like unfair questions, > but my model does all of these things. All > it requires is the reader accept the fact > that the vacuum possesses activity which > can be characterized as a type of energy > density that is not observable (no rest > mass or momentum). This is no different > that accepting that QED calculations > should be believed when they assume vacuum > energy or that zero point energy really > exists. > > *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too > strong, but I have decided to take a > firmer stand. You just happen to be the > first person that I contrast to my model. > I am actually happy to discuss the > scientific details in a less > confrontational way. I just wanted to > make an initial point. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM > *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers > > Dear John Macken, > > I would like to answer a specific topic in > your mail below. You write "... would have > particular relevance to the concept that > the Higgs field is needed to give inertia > to fermions". > > We should not overlook that even > mainstream physicists working on > elementary particles admit that the Higgs > theory is not able to explain inertia. I > give you as a reference: > > >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant > puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and > Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , > > which has the result that the Higgs field, > which causes inertia according to the > theory, is by at least 56 orders of > magnitude too small to explain the mass of > the elementary particles. (Another > weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory > does not tell us the mass of any > elementary particle even if all other > parameters are known.) > > As you may remember, in our meeting I have > presented a model explaining inertia which > does not only work as a general idea but > provides very precise results for the mass > of leptons. The mass is classically > deduced from the size of a particle. It > also explains the mass of quarks, but here > the verification is more difficult, due to > the lack of measurements. In addition I > have shown that the model also explains > the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size > of a photon is related to its wavelength. > > You may find details in the proceedings of > our San Diego meeting, but also on the > following web sites: > > www.ag-physics.org/rmass > > www.ag-physics.org/electron > . > > You may also find the sites by Google > search entering the string "origin of > mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 > of the list, where it has constantly been > during the past 12 years. > > If you have any questions about it, please > ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. > > With best regards > Albrecht Giese > > Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: > > Martin, > > I wanted to remind you that I think > that you should update your article > ?Light Is Heavy? to include the > mathematical proof that confined light > has exactly the same inertia as > particles with equal energy. > Accelerating a reflecting box causes > different photon pressure which > results in a net inertial force. I > already reference your Light Is Heavy > article in my book, but expanding the > article would be even better. An > expanded article would have particular > relevance to the concept that the > Higgs field is needed to give inertia > to fermions. The Higgs field is not > needed to give inertia to confined > light. Furthermore, confined light > exerts exactly the correct inertia and > kinetic energy, even at relativistic > conditions. I have not seen a proof > that the Higgs field gives exactly the > correct amount of inertia or kinetic > energy to fermions. Any particle model > that includes either a confined photon > or confined waves in spacetime > propagating at the speed of light gets > inertia and kinetic energy from the > same principles as confined light in a > reflecting box. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM > *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - > General > Discussion > *Subject:*[General] research papers > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be found > on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the most > recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and the > hierarchy of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability > current as electromagnetic > 4-current from topological EM fields > > Very 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast > Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast > Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast > Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication > from the Nature of Light and Particles General > Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren > gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer > wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and > Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click > here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer > wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and > Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click > here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish > to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles > General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to > unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de > > Click here to unsubscribe > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Sat Sep 26 08:57:44 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:57:44 +0100 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> Albrecht: In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif . The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots . Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this . It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. Regards John Duffield From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hi Martin, Al, and all, thank you all for your contributions. Regarding the size of the electron: As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? Regarding dilation: There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. Best wishes Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de : Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. Regards, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de " > het volgende geschreven: Dear Martin, Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" > An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "phys at a-giese.de" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de ; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" > An: "Richard Gauthier" >, phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03 &tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? >From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ 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 phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: electron.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 274612 bytes Desc: not available URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 10:57:45 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:57:45 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> Message-ID: Albrecht, Al, Martin et al One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I?m not sure about John M?s electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron. Just as a photon?s wavelength (and presumably also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E with a photon?s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius of the charged photon?s helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with respect to our models. I don?t know if Albrecht?s electron model decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht?s model doesn?t I think take into account that the electron?s total energy increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the experimentally measured moving electron?s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his electron model?s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model?s size should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.?s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron?s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Richard > On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield wrote: > > Albrecht: > > In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. > > As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif . The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. > > Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots . Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this . It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. > > Regards > John Duffield > > From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese > Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 > To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > Subject: Re: [General] research papers > > Hi Martin, Al, and all, > > thank you all for your contributions. > > Regarding the size of the electron: > > As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. > > This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. > > I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". > > On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. > > Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? > > Regarding dilation: > > There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: > - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for > - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. > > Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. > > Best wishes > Albrecht > > > > Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de : >> Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? >> >> BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. >> >> Best, Al >> >> >> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr >> Von: "Mark, Martin van der" >> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers >> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. >> Regards, Martin >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone >> >> Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de " > het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Dear Martin, >>> >>> Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." >>> >>> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. >>> >>> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? >>> >>> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. >>> >>> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. >>> >>> Best, Al >>> >>> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr >>> Von: "Mark, Martin van der" > >>> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "phys at a-giese.de " > >>> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers >>> Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, >>> In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. >>> Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. >>> The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. >>> The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. >>> Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. >>> 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 af.kracklauer at web.de >>> Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 >>> To: phys at a-giese.de ; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>> >>> Gentelmen: >>> >>> Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) >>> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al >>> >>> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr >>> Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" > >>> An: "Richard Gauthier" >, phys at a-giese.de >>> Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > >>> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers >>> Hello Richard, >>> >>> according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. >>> >>> As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. >>> >>> I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. >>> >>> Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. >>> >>> All the best to you >>> Albrecht >>> >>> >>> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >>>> Hello Albrecht, >>>> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. >>>> all the best, >>>> Richard >>>> >>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Richard, >>>>> >>>>> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. >>>>> >>>>> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. >>>>> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. >>>>> >>>>> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you again and best wishes >>>>> Albrecht >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >>>>>> This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. >>>>>>> I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. >>>>>>> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer >>>>>>> Research Director >>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc. >>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 >>>>>>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com >>>>>>> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >>>>>>>> John, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>>>>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >>>>>>>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >>>>>>>> How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. >>>>>>>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. >>>>>>>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>>>>>>> John M. >>>>>>>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Albrecht >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de ] >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>>>>>>> To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello John, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To your questions in detail: >>>>>>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> Albrecht >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John M. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>>>>>>>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear John Macken, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>>>>>>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>>>>>>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With best regards >>>>>>>>> Albrecht Giese >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John M. >>>>>>>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [General] research papers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>>>>>>>>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>>>>>>>>> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>>>>>>>>> Very 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 phys at a-giese.de >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>> www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>> www.avast.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe? >>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe? _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Sun Sep 27 03:55:21 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:55:21 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <5607CB19.1000303@a-giese.de> John Duffield: thank you for the link to the paper of Martin and John Williamson. Regarding your question for two loops rather two sub-particles. What would be the advantage? In that case the loop had to have a radius < 10^-19 m to comply with the scattering experiments. And if there is a motion within such loop, on the other hand the loop itself has to move at c like the basic particles do, what about the limitation to the speed of light? Regarding the wave property of the electron: The field (strong force) which causes the bind between the sub-particles reaches of cause also the outside of the electron. As both sub-particles orbit, it is an alternating field which propagates as a wave to any direction - at the speed of light. If now the electron moves, this wave accompanies the electron. It is the "pilot" wave postulated by Louis de Broglie. Scattering and interference: If the electron passes a double slit, this pilot wave moves through the slits and builds an interference structure. This interference structure guides the sub-particles ("basic particles") as it permanently does, in this case to follow this interference pattern. As the basic particles do not have any mass on their own, they follow the field without any resistance. If there is a detector behind the double slit to register the location of the arriving electrons, it will display the shape of the interference pattern and give the observer so the impression that he observes a wave. The mass / momentum of a photon has in my understanding a similar cause as mass and momentum of an electron. It is caused by its internal field. If the electron is in a bound state as e.g. on a shell of an atom, then its surrounding field is able to build a standing wave. You wrote about seismic waves as an analogy. Are your considerations about them covered by my explanation? Thank you for the reference to the paper of /Martin and G.W. ?t Hooft. /It is also about the mass / momentum of photons. It has very interesting thoughts even though I do not follow the arguments in all points. But that could be subject to a separate discussion. Best regards Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 17:57 schrieb John Duffield: > > Albrecht: > > In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: > http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. > > As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals > > electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We > can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic > wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and > a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t > just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a > hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the > other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, > see this gif > . > The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is > the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep > below the water. > > Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then > make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots > . Photon > momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave > propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and > round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits > resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any > more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this > . It?s not the Nobel ?t > Hooft. > > Regards > > John Duffield > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] > *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:* 26 September 2015 15:46 > *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Hi Martin, Al, and all, > > thank you all for your contributions. > > _Regarding the size of the electron:_ > > As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is > passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent > of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if > the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last > experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which > electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" > size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This > limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different > from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the > electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to > the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for > assessing electron models. > > This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of > Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger > made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following > result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we > know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my > evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for > Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. > > I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but > oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, > this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very > clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for > Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion > "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German > vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good > reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". > > On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this > solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with > respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which > reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced > Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two > sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not > applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort > has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This > was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no > mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics > of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may > be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow > without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is > therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the > research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, > and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in > conflict with these experiments. > > Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? > > _Regarding dilation:_ > > There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: > - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has > to be compensated for > - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was > extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement > with special relativity. > > Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of > interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to > dilation. > > Best wishes > Albrecht > > > Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de > : > > Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good > idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a > point and the size of the volumn in which this point is > insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my > appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred > papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my > best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, > however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it > predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? > > BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, > it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In > any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" > criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which > neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. > My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the > presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. > > Best, Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr > *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" > > *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > > > *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers > > Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am > refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered > to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can > only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you > refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. > > Regards, Martin > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone > > > Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de > " > het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Martin, > > Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some > "shoot'n from the hip." > > You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation > based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's > good, maybe not. > > The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't > get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close > enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll > defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in > constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) > and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz > around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to > me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded > structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? > > Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many > folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model > elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself > interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter > as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind > of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like > charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in > what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender > superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, > because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's > motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the > two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. > > I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely > that you all took such consideration into account. > > Best, Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr > *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" > > *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > >, > "phys at a-giese.de" > *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers > > Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, > > In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is > explained briefly but adequately. > > Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does > not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. > This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, > not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from > the person you are Albrecht. > > The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton > wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched > in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to > the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, > not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. > Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all > comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come > from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There > are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy > the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at > that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be > resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic > origin. > > The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin > only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. > > Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. > Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, > because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go > in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. > > 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 *af.kracklauer at web.de > *Sent:* vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 > *To:* phys at a-giese.de ; > general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers > > Gentelmen: > > Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" > of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be > made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although > scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size > (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron > has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the > space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would > be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). > Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the > latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even > recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause > electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect > on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is > sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) > > Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al > > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr > *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" > > *An:* "Richard Gauthier" >, phys at a-giese.de > > *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > > > *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers > > Hello Richard, > > according to present mainstream physics the size of the > electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from > scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge > is the quantity of influence. > > As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) > assume that the electron has no internal structure and that > the electric force is the only one effective, this size is > identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in > severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of > Wilczek based on QM. > > I have the impression that several of us (including me) have > models of the electron which assume some extension roughly > compatible with the QM calculations. > > Some details of my model related to this question: Here the > electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which > orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only > force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is > the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron > follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the > size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the > mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a > point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove > that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying > 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article > that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the > presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into > two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this > happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for > Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but > quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation > of this process which I presently do not have. > > All the best to you > Albrecht > > Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > > Hello Albrecht, > > Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius > related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung > amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or > hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating > charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 > charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius > decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. > Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged > photon model with the generic model could bring the > model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. > > all the best, > > Richard > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > > wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > thank you for this reference to the article of Frank > Wilczek. > > He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a > size for the electron. It is the application of the > uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the > electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, > which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. > This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger > has determined the size of the electron using the > Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined > the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying > the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the > electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant > in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. > > In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, > which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But > here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of > Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the > orbits of the basic particles. > > Thank you again and best wishes > Albrecht > > Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > > This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? > by Frank Wilczek at > http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is > worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, > the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, > which is roughly in the range of some of our > electron models. > > Richard > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > > wrote: > > I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and > that may be the one not available on the web > sight. > I was looking for a similar one that included > the other topics as well. > If you do not have it, its OK, I just like > reading from paper. > > best wishes, > > Wolf > > Dr. Wolfgang Baer > > Research Director > > Nascent Systems Inc. > > tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 > > E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com > > On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > > John, > > You wrote a long text, so I will enter my > answers within your text. > > Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello David and Albrecht, > > It was through the contact with this > group that I was finally able to > understand the disconnect that existed > between my idea of vacuum energy and > the picture that others were obtaining > from my use of the term ?energy?. Many > of the mysteries of quantum mechanics > and general relativity can be traced > to the fact that fields exist and yet > we do not have a clear idea of what > they are. My answer is that we live > within a sea of vacuum activity which > is the physical basis of the > mysterious fields. I combine all > fields into a single ?spacetime field? > which is the basis of all particles, > fields and forces. > > *David*, you asked about the > wordsquantum, quantifying and > quantizing. I did a word search and I > did not use the word ?quantizing? in > either the email or the attachment to > my last post. However, the > paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New > Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of > the conference presentation, used and > defines the word ?quantization?. This > paper was attached to previous posts, > and is available at my website: > http://onlyspacetime.com/ > > *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer > to you with the clarification for > David of the word ?quantify? and its > derivatives. I claim that my model of > the universe ?quantifies? particles > and fields. I will start my > explanation of this concept by giving > examples of models which do not > ?quantify? particles and fields. > There have been numerous particle > models from this group and others > which show an electron model as two > balls orbiting around a center of > mass. Most of the group identifies > these balls as photons but Albrecht > names the two balls ?charges of the > strong force?. Both photons and > charges of strong force are just > words. To be quantifiable, it is > necessary to describe the model of the > universe which gives the strong force > or the electromagnetic force. What > exactly are these? How much energy and > energy density does one charge of > strong force have? Can a photon occupy > a volume smaller than a reduced > Compton wavelength in radius? Does a > muon have the same basic strong force > charge but just rotate faster? Are the > charges of strong force or photons > made of any other more basic component? > > > Regarding charge: This is a basic entity > in my model. At some point a physical > theory has to start. My model starts with > the assumption that a charge is an > "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, > which emits exchange particles (in this > point I follow the general understanding > of QM). There are two types of charges: > the electric ones which we are very > familiar with, having two signs, and the > strong ones, which are not so obvious in > everyday physics; they also have two > signs. In the physical nature we find the > charges of the strong force only in > configurations made of those different > signs, never isolated. This is in contrast > to the electric charges. > > The basic particles are composed of a > collection of charges of the strong force > so that both basic particles are bound to > each other in a way that they keep a > certain distance. This distance > characterizes an elementary particle. In > several (or most) cases there is > additionally an electric charge in the > basic particle. > > The two parameters I have to set - or to > find - are the shape of the strong field > in the elementary particle. Here I have > defined an equation describing a minimum > multi-pole field to make the elementary > particle stable. The other setting is the > strength of this field. This strength can > be found e.g. using the electron because > the electron is well known and precisely > measured. This field is then applicable > for all leptons as well as for all quarks. > It is also applicable for the photon with > the restriction that there may be a > correction factor caused by the fact that > the photon is not fundamental in the sense > of this model but composed of (maybe) two > other particles. > > The size of the photon is (at least > roughly) described by its wavelength. This > follows from the mass formula resulting > from my model, as with this assumption the > (dynamic) mass of the photon is the > correct result. > > As I wrote, the results of this model are > very precise, the prove is in practice > only limited by limitations of the > measurement processes. > > I could go on with more questions until it > is possible to calculate the properties of > an electron from the answers. So far both > models lack any quantifiable details > except perhaps a connection to the > particle?s Compton frequency. I am not > demanding anything more than I have > already done. For example, I cannot > calculate the electron?s Compton frequency > or the fine structure constant. However, > once I install these into the model that I > create, and combine this with the > properties of the spacetime field, then I > get an electron. Installing a muon?s > Compton frequency generates a muon with > the correct electric field, electrostatic > force, curvature of spacetime, > gravitational force and de Broglie waves. > I am able to quantify the distortion of > spacetime produced by a charged particle, > an electric field and a photon. I am able > to test these models and show that they > generate both the correct energy density > and generate a black hole when we reach > the distortion limits of the spacetime field. > > In my model the Compton frequency of the > electron (and of the other leptons) > follows directly from the size of the > particle and the fact that the basic > particle move with c. The fine structure > constant tells us the relation of the > electric force to the strong force. This > explanation follows very directly from > this model, however was also found by > other theorists using algebra of particle > physics. > > Another result of the model is that > Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is > the field constant of the strong force. > Also this is the result of other models > (however not of mainstream physics). > > My model starts with a quantifiable > description of the properties of > spacetime. The spacetime model has a > specific impedance which describes the > properties of waves that can exist in > spacetime. Then the amplitude and > frequency of the waves in spacetime is > quantified. This combination allows the > energy density of spacetime to be > calculated and this agrees with the energy > density of zero point energy. The particle > models are then defined as ??units of > quantized angular momentum existing in the > spacetime field. This model is > quantifiable as to size, structure, > energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate > of time and proper volume is being > modulated, it is possible to calculate the > effect that such a structure would have on > the surrounding volume of spacetime. It > is possible to calculate the effect if the > spacetime-based particle model would have > if the coupling constant was equal to 1 > (Planck charge), To get charge/e/, it is > necessary to manually install the fine > structure constant. > > How do you get the value??for the angular > momentum? What is the calculation behind > it? - I understand that in your model the > electric charge is a parameter deduced > from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? > How do you then get alpha? > > I personally have in so far a problem with > all considerations using spacetime as I > have quite thoroughly investigated how > Einstein came to the idea of this > 4-dimentional construct. His main > motivation was that he wanted in any case > to avoid an ether. And in his discussions > with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he > was running into a lot of problems with > this assumption. He could solve these > problems in general by his "curved > spacetime". But this concept still causes > logical conflicts which are eagerly > neglected by the followers of Einstein's > relativity (and which do not exist in the > Lorentzian way of relativity). > > The quantifiable properties of spacetime > imply that there should be boundary > conditions which imply that the waves in > spacetime should be nonlinear. When the > nonlinear component is calculated and > treated as separate waves, the > characteristics of the particle?s > gravitational field are obtained (correct: > curvature, effect on the rate of time, > force and energy density). > > In my last post I have given an answer > about the factor of 10^120 difference > between the observable energy density of > the universe and the non-observable energy > of the universe. This non-observable > energy density is absolutely necessary for > QED calculations, zero point energy, the > uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, > spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics > in general. This non-observable energy > density is responsible for the > tremendously large impedance of spacetime > c^3 /G. Since I can also show how this > non-observable energy density is > obtainable from gravitational wave > equations, it is necessary for*you*to show > how all these effects can be achieved > without spacetime being a single field > with this non-observable energy density. > In fact, the name non-observable only > applied to direct observation. The > indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms > the basis of the universe and therefore is > the ?background noise? of the universe. > For this reason it is not directly > observable because we can only detect > differences in energy. The > constants/c,//G/,/?/and/?_o /testify that > spacetime is not an empty void. > > Up to now I did not find any necessity for > zero-point energy. And I find it a > dangerous way to assume physical facts > which cannot be observed. The greatest > argument in favour of this energy is its > use in Feynman diagrams. But is there > really no other way? I have a lecture of > Feynman here where he states that his > formalism has good results. But that he > has no physical understanding why it is > successful. In my understanding of the > development of physics this is a weak point. > > The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed > and observed energy is taken as a great > and unresolved problem by present main > stream physics. Those representatives > would have all reason to find a solution > to keep present QM clean. But they are not > able to. This causes me some concern. > > The constants you have listed: c is the > speed of light what ever the reason for it > is. (I have a model, but it is a bit > speculative.) But it has nothing to do > with energy. G is the gravitational > constant which is as little understood as > gravity itself. Planck's constant I have > explained, it is (with c) the field > constant of the strong force (any force > has to be described by a field constant); > and/?_o /is the field constant of the > electric force with a similar background. > > If spacetime was an empty void, why should > particles have a speed limit of/c/? For a > thought experiment, suppose that two > spaceships leave earth going opposite > directions and accelerate until they reach > a speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. > The earth bound observer sees them > separating at 1.5/c/but the rules of > relativistic addition of velocity has a > spaceship observer seeing the other > spaceship moving away at only 0.96/c/. > How is this possible if spacetime is an > empty void. My model of the universe > answers this because all particles, fields > and forces are also made of the spacetime > field and they combine to achieve Lorentz > transformations which affects ruler length > and clocks. None of this can happen unless > spacetime is filled with dipole waves in > spacetime and everything is made of the > single component. The universe is only > spacetime. > > If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in > opposite direction, the observer at rest > may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as > a result. Why not? If an observer in one > of the spaceships measures the relative > speed of the other spaceship, the result > will be less then c (as you write it). The > reason is the well known fact that the > measurement tools accessible for the > observer in the ship are changed and run > differently at this high speed. The reason > for these changes is for time dilation the > internal speed c in elementary particles. > For contraction it is the contraction of > fields at motion which is a fact > independent of relativity (and which was > already known before Einstein). In > addition when the speed of another object > is to be measured several clocks are to be > used positioned along the measurement > section. These clocks are de-synchronized > in relation to the clocks of the observer > at rest. These phenomena together cause > the measurement result < c. You find these > considerations in papers and books about > the Lorentzian interpretation of > relativity. So, following Lorentz, there > is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. > > John M. > > Perhaps I should read your book. But that > chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. > > Albrecht > > *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese > [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] > *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM > *To:*John Macken > ; 'Nature of Light > and Particles - General > Discussion' > > *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers > > Hello John, > > great that you have looked so deeply into > the model which I have presented. Thank you. > > There are some questions which I can > answer quite easily. I think that this > model in fact explains several points just > in contrast to main stream physics. In > standard physics the electron (just as an > example) is a point-like object without > any internal structure. So, how can a > magnetic moment be explained? How can the > spin be explained? How can the mass be > explained? The position of main stream > physics is: That cannot be explained but > is subject to quantum mechanics. And the > fact that it cannot be explained shows how > necessary QM is. > > In contrast, if the electron is assumed to > have a structure like in the model > presented, these parameters can be > explained in a classical way, and this > explanation is not merely a qualitative > one but has precise quantitative results. > > To your questions in detail: > The fact of two basic particles is > necessary to explain the fact of an > oscillation and to fulfil the conservation > of momentum. A single object (as > point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic > particles are composed of charges of the > strong force. In this model the strong > force is assumed to be the universal force > in our world effective on all particles. A > charge is a fundamental object in the > scope of this model. There are two kinds > of charges according to the two kinds of > forces in our world, the strong one and > the electric one. The weak force is in > fact the strong force but has a smaller > coupling constant caused by geometric > circumstances. And gravity is not a force > at all but a refraction process, which is > so a side effect of the other forces. And, > by the way, gravity is not curved > spacetime. This is not necessary, and > besides of this, Einstein's spacetime > leads to logical conflicts. > > The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an > elementary particle are configured in a > way that at a certain distance there is a > potential minimum and in this way the > distance between the basic particles is > enforced. So, this field has attracting > and repulsive components. Outside the > elementary particle the attracting forces > dominate to make the particle a stable > one. And those field parts outside have an > opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles > are orbiting each other, the outside field > is an alternating field (of the strong > forth). If this field propagates, it is > builds a wave. This wave is described by > the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the > assumptions of de Broglie. > > With the assumption of two basic particles > orbiting at c and subject to strong force, > the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin > result from it numerically correctly > without further assumptions. > > This model does not need any vacuum energy > or virtual particles. Those are simply not > necessary and they are anyway very > speculative because not directly > observable. And in the case of the vacuum > energy of the universe we are confronted > with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you > also mention in your paper attached to > your mail. > > The Coulomb law can be easily explained by > the assumption (standard at quantum > mechanics) that a force is realized by > exchange particles. The density of > exchange particles and so the strength of > the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is > simple geometry. > > So John, this is my position. Now I am > curious about your objections of further > questions. > > Best regards > Albrecht > > Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: > > Hello Albrecht and All, > > I have attached a one page addition > that I will make to my book. It is a > preliminary explanation of my model of > the spacetime field. It has been very > helpful to me to interact with this > group because I now understand better > the key stumbling block for some > scientists to accept my thesis. > Therefore I have written the attached > introduction to ease the reader of my > book into my model. > > *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We > agree on several points which include > the size of the electron and there is > a similarity in the explanation of > gravity. The key points of > disagreement are the same as I have > with the rest of the group. Your > explanation of a fundamental particle > is not really an explanation. You > substitute a fundamental particle such > as an electron with two ?basic > particles?. Have we made any progress > or did we just double the problem? > What is your basic particles made of? > What is the physics behind the force > of attraction between the particles? > What is the physics behind an electric > field? How does your model create de > Broglie waves? How does your model > create a gravitational field (curved > spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb > law and Newtonian gravitational > equation from your model? > > These might seem like unfair > questions, but my model does all of > these things. All it requires is the > reader accept the fact that the vacuum > possesses activity which can be > characterized as a type of energy > density that is not observable (no > rest mass or momentum). This is no > different that accepting that QED > calculations should be believed when > they assume vacuum energy or that zero > point energy really exists. > > *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too > strong, but I have decided to take a > firmer stand. You just happen to be > the first person that I contrast to my > model. I am actually happy to discuss > the scientific details in a less > confrontational way. I just wanted to > make an initial point. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese > *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM > *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > > *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers > > Dear John Macken, > > I would like to answer a specific > topic in your mail below. You write > "... would have particular relevance > to the concept that the Higgs field is > needed to give inertia to fermions". > > We should not overlook that even > mainstream physicists working on > elementary particles admit that the > Higgs theory is not able to explain > inertia. I give you as a reference: > > >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant > puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear > and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , > > which has the result that the Higgs > field, which causes inertia according > to the theory, is by at least 56 > orders of magnitude too small to > explain the mass of the elementary > particles. (Another weakness is the > fact that the Higgs theory does not > tell us the mass of any elementary > particle even if all other parameters > are known.) > > As you may remember, in our meeting I > have presented a model explaining > inertia which does not only work as a > general idea but provides very precise > results for the mass of leptons. The > mass is classically deduced from the > size of a particle. It also explains > the mass of quarks, but here the > verification is more difficult, due to > the lack of measurements. In addition > I have shown that the model also > explains the (dynamic) mass of > photons, if the size of a photon is > related to its wavelength. > > You may find details in the > proceedings of our San Diego meeting, > but also on the following web sites: > > www.ag-physics.org/rmass > > www.ag-physics.org/electron > . > > You may also find the sites by Google > search entering the string "origin of > mass". You will find it on position 1 > or 2 of the list, where it has > constantly been during the past 12 years. > > If you have any questions about it, > please ask me. I will be happy about > any discussion. > > With best regards > Albrecht Giese > > Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John > Macken: > > Martin, > > I wanted to remind you that I > think that you should update your > article ?Light Is Heavy? to > include the mathematical proof > that confined light has exactly > the same inertia as particles with > equal energy. Accelerating a > reflecting box causes different > photon pressure which results in a > net inertial force. I already > reference your Light Is Heavy > article in my book, but expanding > the article would be even better. > An expanded article would have > particular relevance to the > concept that the Higgs field is > needed to give inertia to > fermions. The Higgs field is not > needed to give inertia to confined > light. Furthermore, confined light > exerts exactly the correct inertia > and kinetic energy, even at > relativistic conditions. I have > not seen a proof that the Higgs > field gives exactly the correct > amount of inertia or kinetic > energy to fermions. Any particle > model that includes either a > confined photon or confined waves > in spacetime propagating at the > speed of light gets inertia and > kinetic energy from the same > principles as confined light in a > reflecting box. > > John M. > > *From:*General > [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On > Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der > *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 > 6:34 AM > *To:*Nature of Light and Particles > - General > Discussion > > *Subject:*[General] research papers > > Dear all, > > My recent (and old) work can be > found on Researchgate: > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications > > In particular you will find the > most recent work: > > * On the nature of ?stuff? and > the hierarchy of forces > * Quantum mechanical probability > current as electromagnetic > 4-current from topological EM > fields > > Very 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast > Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast > Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast > Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com > > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication > from the Nature of Light and Particles General > Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com > > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf > Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Avast logo > > > > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > www.avast.com > > > _______________________________________________ If you no > longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ If you no > longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light > and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> > Click here to unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ If you no longer > wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and > Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de > Click here to unsubscribe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de > > > > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richgauthier at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 08:43:22 2015 From: richgauthier at gmail.com (Richard Gauthier) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:43:22 -0700 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <5607CB19.1000303@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> <5607CB19.1000303@a-giese.de> Message-ID: Hello Albrecht, Thank you for your explanation. I like your proposal that if the electron is in a bound state, as in an atom, the surrounding field is able to build a standing wave. Did you show quantitatively that your moving electron model generates the relativistic de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) and the electron?s phase velocity c^2/v, necessary for a de Broglie wave? Richard > On Sep 27, 2015, at 3:55 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: > > John Duffield: > > thank you for the link to the paper of Martin and John Williamson. > > Regarding your question for two loops rather two sub-particles. What would be the advantage? In that case the loop had to have a radius < 10^-19 m to comply with the scattering experiments. And if there is a motion within such loop, on the other hand the loop itself has to move at c like the basic particles do, what about the limitation to the speed of light? > > Regarding the wave property of the electron: > > The field (strong force) which causes the bind between the sub-particles reaches of cause also the outside of the electron. As both sub-particles orbit, it is an alternating field which propagates as a wave to any direction - at the speed of light. If now the electron moves, this wave accompanies the electron. It is the "pilot" wave postulated by Louis de Broglie. > > Scattering and interference: If the electron passes a double slit, this pilot wave moves through the slits and builds an interference structure. This interference structure guides the sub-particles ("basic particles") as it permanently does, in this case to follow this interference pattern. As the basic particles do not have any mass on their own, they follow the field without any resistance. If there is a detector behind the double slit to register the location of the arriving electrons, it will display the shape of the interference pattern and give the observer so the impression that he observes a wave. > > The mass / momentum of a photon has in my understanding a similar cause as mass and momentum of an electron. It is caused by its internal field. > > If the electron is in a bound state as e.g. on a shell of an atom, then its surrounding field is able to build a standing wave. > > You wrote about seismic waves as an analogy. Are your considerations about them covered by my explanation? > > Thank you for the reference to the paper of Martin and G.W. ?t Hooft. It is also about the mass / momentum of photons. It has very interesting thoughts even though I do not follow the arguments in all points. But that could be subject to a separate discussion. > > Best regards > Albrecht > > > Am 26.09.2015 um 17:57 schrieb John Duffield: >> Albrecht: >> >> In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. >> >> As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif . The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. >> >> Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots . Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this . It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. >> >> Regards >> John Duffield >> >> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >> Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 >> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >> >> Hi Martin, Al, and all, >> >> thank you all for your contributions. >> >> Regarding the size of the electron: >> >> As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. >> >> This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. >> >> I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". >> >> On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. >> >> Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? >> >> Regarding dilation: >> >> There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: >> - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for >> - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. >> >> Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. >> >> Best wishes >> Albrecht >> >> >> >> Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de : >> Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? >> >> BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. >> >> Best, Al >> >> >> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr >> Von: "Mark, Martin van der" >> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers >> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. >> Regards, Martin >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone >> >> Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft " af.kracklauer at web.de " > het volgende geschreven: >> >> Dear Martin, >> >> Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." >> >> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. >> >> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? >> >> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. >> >> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. >> >> Best, Al >> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr >> Von: "Mark, Martin van der" < martin.van.der.mark at philips.com > >> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "phys at a-giese.de " > >> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers >> Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, >> In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. >> Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. >> The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. >> The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. >> Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. >> 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 af.kracklauer at web.de >> Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 >> To: phys at a-giese.de ; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >> >> Gentelmen: >> >> Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al >> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr >> Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" < genmail at a-giese.de > >> An: "Richard Gauthier" < richgauthier at gmail.com >, phys at a-giese.de >> Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org > >> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers >> Hello Richard, >> >> according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. >> >> As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. >> >> I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. >> >> Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. >> >> All the best to you >> Albrecht >> >> >> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >> Hello Albrecht, >> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. >> all the best, >> Richard >> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese < genmail at a-giese.de > wrote: >> >> Dear Richard, >> >> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. >> >> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. >> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. >> >> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. >> >> Thank you again and best wishes >> Albrecht >> >> >> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >> This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. >> Richard >> >> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer < wolf at nascentinc.com > wrote: >> >> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. >> I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. >> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. >> >> best wishes, >> >> Wolf >> >> Dr. Wolfgang Baer >> Research Director >> Nascent Systems Inc. >> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 >> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com >> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >> John, >> >> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >> Hello David and Albrecht, >> >> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. >> >> David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >> >> Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? >> >> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >> >> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. >> >> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >> >> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. >> >> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. >> >> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. >> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. >> >> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). >> >> >> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. >> How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >> >> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). >> >> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >> >> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. >> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >> >> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. >> >> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. >> >> >> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. >> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >> John M. >> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. >> >> Albrecht >> >> >> From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [ mailto:genmail at a-giese.de ] >> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >> To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > >> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >> >> Hello John, >> >> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. >> >> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >> >> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >> >> To your questions in detail: >> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >> >> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >> >> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. >> >> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. >> >> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. >> >> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. >> >> Best regards >> Albrecht >> >> >> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >> Hello Albrecht and All, >> >> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. >> >> Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >> >> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. >> >> Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >> >> John M. >> >> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese >> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> Subject: Re: [General] research papers >> >> Dear John Macken, >> >> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >> >> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) >> >> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. >> >> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: >> >> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >> >> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. >> >> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. >> >> With best regards >> Albrecht Giese >> >> >> >> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >> Martin, >> >> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. >> >> John M. >> From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der >> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > >> Subject: [General] research papers >> >> Dear all, >> >> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >> In particular you will find the most recent work: >> >> On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >> Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >> Very 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 >> >> >> 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 phys at a-giese.de >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com >> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> www.avast.com >> >> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe? >> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de >> > >> Click here to unsubscribe >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com > > Click here to unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidmathes8 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 27 19:55:12 2015 From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com (davidmathes8 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 02:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [General] Dark Matter == Polarized Vacuum? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1846106934.1678586.1443408912627.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Rich, John W, Martin and all, Two papers?may be of interest to those building or refining electron models, especially those with ?early universe electron models. These papers are about to be published in Physics Review Letters . >From LLNL,?New 'stealth dark matter' theory may explain mystery of the universe's missing mass? Through a combination of computer simulations and theoretical results, researchers Pavlos Vranas and colleagues (editor's note: Applequist et al) have now developed a "stealth dark matter" model that could help unravel the mystery of why dark matter behaves like it does, what particles make it up, and what force binds them. Crucially, the model offers assumptions that physicists should be able to test using CERN's?Large Hadron Collider?(LHC) particle accelerator.?The stealth dark matter model predicts that dark matter is stable, but also produces large quantities of electrically charged, unstable nuclear particles. These short-lived particles, now long decayed, would have left a definite mark in the very early universe, with the extremely high?plasma?temperatures forcing them to interact with ordinary matter.?"These interactions in the early universe are important because ordinary and dark matter abundances today are strikingly similar in size, suggesting this occurred because of a balancing act performed between the two before the universe cooled," says Vranas. - - - 1.??arXiv:1503.04205?[pdf,?other] - Direct Detection of Stealth Dark Matter through Electromagnetic PolarizabilityThomas Appelquist,?Evan Berkowitz,?Richard C. Brower,?Michael I. Buchoff,?George T. Fleming,?Xiao-Yong Jin,?Joe Kiskis,?Graham D. Kribs,?Ethan T. Neil,?James C. Osborn,?Claudio Rebbi,?Enrico Rinaldi,?David Schaich,?Chris Schroeder,?Sergey Syritsyn,?Pavlos Vranas,?Evan Weinberg,?Oliver WitzelComments:?6 pages, 2 figures, citations added, typos fixed, minor clarificationsSubjects:?High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Lattice (hep-lat) Full ABSTRACT: We calculate the spin-independent scattering cross section for direct detection that results from the electromagnetic polarizability of a composite scalar baryon dark matter candidate -- "Stealth Dark Matter", that is based on a dark SU(4) confining gauge theory. In the nonrelativistic limit, electromagnetic polarizability proceeds through a dimension-7 interaction leading to a very small scattering cross section for dark matter with weak scale masses. This represents a lower bound on the scattering cross section for composite dark matter theories with electromagnetically charged constituents. We carry out lattice calculations of the polarizability for the lightest baryons in SU(3) and SU(4) gauge theories using the background field method on quenched configurations. We find the polarizabilities of SU(3) and SU(4) to be comparable (within about 50%) normalized to the baryon mass, which is suggestive for extensions to larger SU(N) groups. The resulting scattering cross sections with a xenon target are shown to be potentially detectable in the dark matter mass range of about 200-700 GeV, where the lower bound is from the existing LUX constraint while the upper bound is the coherent neutrino background. Significant uncertainties in the cross section remain due to the more complicated interaction of the polarizablity operator with nuclear structure, however the steep dependence on the dark matter mass,?1/m^6??B, suggests the observable dark matter mass range is not appreciably modified. We briefly highlight collider searches for the mesons in the theory as well as the indirect astrophysical effects that may also provide excellent probes of stealth dark matter. - 2.??arXiv:1503.04203?[pdf,?other] - Stealth Dark Matter: Dark scalar baryons through the Higgs portalThomas Appelquist,?Richard C. Brower,?Michael I. Buchoff,?George T. Fleming,?Xiao-Yong Jin,?Joe Kiskis,?Graham D. Kribs,?Ethan T. Neil,?James C. Osborn,?Claudio Rebbi,?Enrico Rinaldi,?David Schaich,?Chris Schroeder,?Sergey Syritsyn,?Pavlos Vranas,?Evan Weinberg,?Oliver WitzelComments:?15 pages, 3 figures, citations added, typos fixed, minor clarificationsSubjects:?High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Lattice (hep-lat)ABSTRACT QUOTE: We present a new model of "Stealth Dark Matter": a composite baryonic scalar of an?SU(ND)?strongly-coupled theory with even?ND?4. Best Regards, David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genmail at a-giese.de Mon Sep 28 08:39:41 2015 From: genmail at a-giese.de (Dr. Albrecht Giese) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:39:41 +0200 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> Richard, you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad to answer them. Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (R_el *c), where R_el is the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the relativistic momentum of the electron. (This is all described in my web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass ; you can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be the number one.) However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m. So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which also explains a lot else. Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation. Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier: > Albrecht, Al, Martin et al > > One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian > (as I remember) and I all agree on (I?m not sure about John M?s > electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a > circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing > speed of the electron. Just as a photon?s wavelength (and presumably > also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E > with a photon?s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron > (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a > high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy > electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its > energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according > to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the > radius of the charged photon?s helical trajectory decreases as > 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) > model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma > decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering > size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size > of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is > around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with > respect to our models. > > I don?t know if Albrecht?s electron model decreases as 1/gamma > with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht?s model > doesn?t I think take into account that the electron?s total energy > increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 > circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally > with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the > experimentally measured moving electron?s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That > should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his > electron model?s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to > circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model?s size should also > decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 > massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small > size of the electron at high speeds. As far as conservation of > momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.?s model proposes > to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a > double loop and produce the electron?s rest mass (as I understand it) > and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of > Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in > position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength > electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of > a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be > experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not > experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) > under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. > Richard > >> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield >> > wrote: >> >> Albrecht: >> In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 >> paper:http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdfco-authored with John Williamson. >> As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. Inatomic orbitals >> electrons >> ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can >> diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave >> has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a >> wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t >> just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a >> hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the >> other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, >> seethis gif >> . >> The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor >> is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep >> below the water. >> Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then >> make it a tighter loop. Then have a look atsome knots >> . Photon >> momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave >> propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and >> round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits >> resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any >> more. We call it mass. Make sure you readthis >> . It?s not the Nobel ?t >> Hooft. >> Regards >> John Duffield >> *From:*General >> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese >> *Sent:*26 September 2015 15:46 >> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >> >> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >> >> Hi Martin, Al, and all, >> >> thank you all for your contributions. >> >> _Regarding the size of the electron:_ >> >> As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is >> passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent >> of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if >> the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last >> experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which >> electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" >> size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This >> limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different >> from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the >> electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to >> the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for >> assessing electron models. >> >> This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation >> of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. >> Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the >> following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton >> radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have >> an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So >> also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. >> >> I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but >> oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton >> wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of >> momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was >> also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the >> internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist >> in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated >> (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". >> >> On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, >> this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least >> with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, >> which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the >> reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of >> two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but >> not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient >> effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong >> bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the >> sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is >> caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one >> of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the >> other one can always follow without any force coming up. A >> decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have >> discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was >> responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he >> admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. >> >> Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? >> >> _Regarding dilation:_ >> >> There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: >> - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has >> to be compensated for >> - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was >> extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement >> with special relativity. >> >> Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of >> interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to >> dilation. >> >> Best wishes >> Albrecht >> >> >> Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de >> : >>> Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good >>> idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a >>> point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently >>> moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? >>> Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have >>> read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to >>> them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots >>> of attention because it predicted something new to be observed >>> empirically. Did it? >>> BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it >>> (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any >>> case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism >>> of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you >>> nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment >>> was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too >>> have hundreds of unread papers available. >>> Best, Al >>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr >>> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" >>> >>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General >>> Discussion" >>> >>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers >>> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am >>> refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. >>> Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only >>> bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer >>> to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. >>> Regards, Martin >>> >>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone >>> >>> Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de >>> " >> > het volgende geschreven: >>>> Dear Martin, >>>> Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n >>>> from the hip." >>>> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based >>>> on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. >>>> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get >>>> close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough >>>> to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts >>>> up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or >>>> near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time >>>> scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout >>>> of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were >>>> spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. >>>> Why not? >>>> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks >>>> (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary >>>> particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its >>>> induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the >>>> universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. >>>> Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other >>>> unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge >>>> of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static >>>> approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the >>>> virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, >>>> so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like >>>> Albrecht's pairs. >>>> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that >>>> you all took such consideration into account. >>>> Best, Al >>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr >>>> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" >>> > >>>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >>>> >>> >, >>>> "phys at a-giese.de " >>> > >>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers >>>> Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, >>>> In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is >>>> explained briefly but adequately. >>>> Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not >>>> want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is >>>> a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not >>>> sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person >>>> you are Albrecht. >>>> The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton >>>> wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY >>>> experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron >>>> and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken >>>> by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has >>>> point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its >>>> gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until >>>> you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but >>>> at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the >>>> resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object >>>> CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of >>>> electromagnetic origin. >>>> The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, >>>> there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. >>>> Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it >>>> is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted >>>> by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste >>>> of time and energy. >>>> 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*af.kracklauer at web.de >>>> *Sent:*vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 >>>> *To:*phys at a-giese.de >>>> ;general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>> *Cc:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion >>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>> Gentelmen: >>>> Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of >>>> the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My >>>> best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering >>>> experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists >>>> in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size >>>> whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its >>>> Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM >>>> (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what >>>> folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps >>>> often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter >>>> volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have >>>> some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how >>>> this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. >>>> (Albrectht?) >>>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al >>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr >>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" >>> > >>>> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" >>> >,phys at a-giese.de >>>> >>>> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >>>> >>> > >>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers >>>> Hello Richard, >>>> >>>> according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is >>>> not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering >>>> experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity >>>> of influence. >>>> >>>> As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume >>>> that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric >>>> force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the >>>> size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the >>>> calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. >>>> >>>> I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models >>>> of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with >>>> the QM calculations. >>>> >>>> Some details of my model related to this question: Here the >>>> electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which >>>> orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force >>>> inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the >>>> reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows >>>> with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases >>>> by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this >>>> factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in >>>> my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 >>>> sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek >>>> writes in his article that in certain circumstances - >>>> superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the >>>> electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of >>>> measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This >>>> is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no >>>> mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative >>>> calculation of this process which I presently do not have. >>>> >>>> All the best to you >>>> Albrecht >>>> >>>> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >>>>> Hello Albrecht, >>>>> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the >>>>> Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the >>>>> reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of >>>>> the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my >>>>> circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. >>>>> That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. >>>>> Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon >>>>> model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to >>>>> the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. >>>>> all the best, >>>>> Richard >>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> Dear Richard, >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. >>>>>> >>>>>> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the >>>>>> electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to >>>>>> the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: >>>>>> 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. >>>>>> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has >>>>>> determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in >>>>>> 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the >>>>>> zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the >>>>>> rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which >>>>>> also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is >>>>>> exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an >>>>>> expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but >>>>>> the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you again and best wishes >>>>>> Albrecht >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: >>>>>>> This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank >>>>>>> Wilczek at >>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is >>>>>>> worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the >>>>>>> electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range >>>>>>> of some of our electron models. >>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one >>>>>>>> not available on the web sight. >>>>>>>> I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics >>>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>>> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> best wishes, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wolf >>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer >>>>>>>> Research Director >>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc. >>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 >>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com >>>>>>>> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: >>>>>>>>> John, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your >>>>>>>>> text. >>>>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>>>>>> Hello David and Albrecht, >>>>>>>>>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally >>>>>>>>>> able to understand the disconnect that existed between my >>>>>>>>>> idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were >>>>>>>>>> obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the >>>>>>>>>> mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be >>>>>>>>>> traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a >>>>>>>>>> clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live >>>>>>>>>> within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis >>>>>>>>>> of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single >>>>>>>>>> ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields >>>>>>>>>> and forces. >>>>>>>>>> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and >>>>>>>>>> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word >>>>>>>>>> ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last >>>>>>>>>> post. However, the paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New >>>>>>>>>> Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the conference >>>>>>>>>> presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This >>>>>>>>>> paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my >>>>>>>>>> website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ >>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the >>>>>>>>>> clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its >>>>>>>>>> derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe >>>>>>>>>> ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my >>>>>>>>>> explanation of this concept by giving examples of models >>>>>>>>>> which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have >>>>>>>>>> been numerous particle models from this group and others >>>>>>>>>> which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a >>>>>>>>>> center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as >>>>>>>>>> photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the >>>>>>>>>> strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are >>>>>>>>>> just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe >>>>>>>>>> the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the >>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much >>>>>>>>>> energy and energy density does one charge of strong force >>>>>>>>>> have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced >>>>>>>>>> Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic >>>>>>>>>> strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges >>>>>>>>>> of strong force or photons made of any other more basic >>>>>>>>>> component? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some >>>>>>>>> point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the >>>>>>>>> assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly >>>>>>>>> point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I >>>>>>>>> follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types >>>>>>>>> of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, >>>>>>>>> having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so >>>>>>>>> obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the >>>>>>>>> physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only >>>>>>>>> in configurations made of those different signs, never >>>>>>>>> isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of >>>>>>>>> the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to >>>>>>>>> each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This >>>>>>>>> distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or >>>>>>>>> most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the >>>>>>>>> basic particle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape >>>>>>>>> of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have >>>>>>>>> defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to >>>>>>>>> make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the >>>>>>>>> strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using >>>>>>>>> the electron because the electron is well known and precisely >>>>>>>>> measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as >>>>>>>>> well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon >>>>>>>>> with the restriction that there may be a correction factor >>>>>>>>> caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the >>>>>>>>> sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its >>>>>>>>> wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from >>>>>>>>> my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the >>>>>>>>> photon is the correct result. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the >>>>>>>>> prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the >>>>>>>>> measurement processes. >>>>>>>>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to >>>>>>>>> calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So >>>>>>>>> far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a >>>>>>>>> connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not >>>>>>>>> demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, >>>>>>>>> I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the >>>>>>>>> fine structure constant. However, once I install these into >>>>>>>>> the model that I create, and combine this with the properties >>>>>>>>> of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a >>>>>>>>> muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct >>>>>>>>> electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, >>>>>>>>> gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to >>>>>>>>> quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged >>>>>>>>> particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test >>>>>>>>> these models and show that they generate both the correct >>>>>>>>> energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the >>>>>>>>> distortion limits of the spacetime field. >>>>>>>>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the >>>>>>>>> other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle >>>>>>>>> and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine >>>>>>>>> structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force >>>>>>>>> to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly >>>>>>>>> from this model, however was also found by other theorists >>>>>>>>> using algebra of particle physics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - >>>>>>>>> multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. >>>>>>>>> Also this is the result of other models (however not of >>>>>>>>> mainstream physics). >>>>>>>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the >>>>>>>>> properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific >>>>>>>>> impedance which describes the properties of waves that can >>>>>>>>> exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the >>>>>>>>> waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the >>>>>>>>> energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees >>>>>>>>> with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle >>>>>>>>> models are then defined as ??units of quantized angular >>>>>>>>> momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is >>>>>>>>> quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact >>>>>>>>> that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it >>>>>>>>> is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure >>>>>>>>> would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is >>>>>>>>> possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based >>>>>>>>> particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal >>>>>>>>> to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge/e/, it is necessary to >>>>>>>>> manually install the fine structure constant. >>>>>>>>> How do you get the value??for the angular momentum? What is >>>>>>>>> the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model >>>>>>>>> the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. >>>>>>>>> Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations >>>>>>>>> using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how >>>>>>>>> Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His >>>>>>>>> main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an >>>>>>>>> ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to >>>>>>>>> realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this >>>>>>>>> assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his >>>>>>>>> "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical >>>>>>>>> conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of >>>>>>>>> Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the >>>>>>>>> Lorentzian way of relativity). >>>>>>>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there >>>>>>>>> should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in >>>>>>>>> spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is >>>>>>>>> calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics >>>>>>>>> of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: >>>>>>>>> curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). >>>>>>>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of >>>>>>>>> 10^120 difference between the observable energy density of the >>>>>>>>> universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This >>>>>>>>> non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED >>>>>>>>> calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, >>>>>>>>> Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in >>>>>>>>> general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for >>>>>>>>> the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 /G. Since I >>>>>>>>> can also show how this non-observable energy density is >>>>>>>>> obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary >>>>>>>>> for*you*to show how all these effects can be achieved without >>>>>>>>> spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy >>>>>>>>> density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to >>>>>>>>> direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It >>>>>>>>> forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the >>>>>>>>> ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not >>>>>>>>> directly observable because we can only detect differences in >>>>>>>>> energy. The constants/c,//G/,/?/and/?_o /testify that >>>>>>>>> spacetime is not an empty void. >>>>>>>>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. >>>>>>>>> And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which >>>>>>>>> cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this >>>>>>>>> energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no >>>>>>>>> other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states >>>>>>>>> that his formalism has good results. But that he has no >>>>>>>>> physical understanding why it is successful. In my >>>>>>>>> understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy >>>>>>>>> is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main >>>>>>>>> stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to >>>>>>>>> find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not >>>>>>>>> able to. This causes me some concern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what >>>>>>>>> ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit >>>>>>>>> speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the >>>>>>>>> gravitational constant which is as little understood as >>>>>>>>> gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is >>>>>>>>> (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has >>>>>>>>> to be described by a field constant); and/?_o /is the field >>>>>>>>> constant of the electric force with a similar background. >>>>>>>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a >>>>>>>>> speed limit of/c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two >>>>>>>>> spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and >>>>>>>>> accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75/c/relative to the >>>>>>>>> earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at >>>>>>>>> 1.5/c/but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a >>>>>>>>> spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at >>>>>>>>> only 0.96/c/. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty >>>>>>>>> void. My model of the universe answers this because all >>>>>>>>> particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime >>>>>>>>> field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations >>>>>>>>> which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen >>>>>>>>> unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and >>>>>>>>> everything is made of the single component. The universe is >>>>>>>>> only spacetime. >>>>>>>>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the >>>>>>>>> observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a >>>>>>>>> result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships >>>>>>>>> measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result >>>>>>>>> will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well >>>>>>>>> known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the >>>>>>>>> observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this >>>>>>>>> high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation >>>>>>>>> the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction >>>>>>>>> it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact >>>>>>>>> independent of relativity (and which was already known before >>>>>>>>> Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to >>>>>>>>> be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the >>>>>>>>> measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in >>>>>>>>> relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These >>>>>>>>> phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find >>>>>>>>> these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian >>>>>>>>> interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is >>>>>>>>> no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. >>>>>>>>> John M. >>>>>>>>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of >>>>>>>>> time, I am afraid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Albrecht >>>>>>>>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] >>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:*John Macken ; >>>>>>>>> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General >>>>>>>>> Discussion'>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello John, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I >>>>>>>>> have presented. Thank you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I >>>>>>>>> think that this model in fact explains several points just in >>>>>>>>> contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the >>>>>>>>> electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without >>>>>>>>> any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be >>>>>>>>> explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be >>>>>>>>> explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot >>>>>>>>> be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact >>>>>>>>> that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure >>>>>>>>> like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained >>>>>>>>> in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a >>>>>>>>> qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To your questions in detail: >>>>>>>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the >>>>>>>>> fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of >>>>>>>>> momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. >>>>>>>>> The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong >>>>>>>>> force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the >>>>>>>>> universal force in our world effective on all particles. A >>>>>>>>> charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. >>>>>>>>> There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of >>>>>>>>> forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The >>>>>>>>> weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller >>>>>>>>> coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And >>>>>>>>> gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which >>>>>>>>> is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, >>>>>>>>> gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and >>>>>>>>> besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle >>>>>>>>> are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a >>>>>>>>> potential minimum and in this way the distance between the >>>>>>>>> basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and >>>>>>>>> repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the >>>>>>>>> attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. >>>>>>>>> And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as >>>>>>>>> the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field >>>>>>>>> is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field >>>>>>>>> propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the >>>>>>>>> Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and >>>>>>>>> subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, >>>>>>>>> spin result from it numerically correctly without further >>>>>>>>> assumptions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual >>>>>>>>> particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway >>>>>>>>> very speculative because not directly observable. And in the >>>>>>>>> case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted >>>>>>>>> with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your >>>>>>>>> paper attached to your mail. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption >>>>>>>>> (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by >>>>>>>>> exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so >>>>>>>>> the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple >>>>>>>>> geometry. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your >>>>>>>>> objections of further questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>>> Albrecht >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht and All, >>>>>>>>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my >>>>>>>>>> book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the >>>>>>>>>> spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact >>>>>>>>>> with this group because I now understand better the key >>>>>>>>>> stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. >>>>>>>>>> Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease >>>>>>>>>> the reader of my book into my model. >>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We agree on several >>>>>>>>>> points which include the size of the electron and there is a >>>>>>>>>> similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of >>>>>>>>>> disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the >>>>>>>>>> group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not >>>>>>>>>> really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle >>>>>>>>>> such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made >>>>>>>>>> any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your >>>>>>>>>> basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the >>>>>>>>>> force of attraction between the particles? What is the >>>>>>>>>> physics behind an electric field? How does your model create >>>>>>>>>> de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational >>>>>>>>>> field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and >>>>>>>>>> Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? >>>>>>>>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all >>>>>>>>>> of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the >>>>>>>>>> fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be >>>>>>>>>> characterized as a type of energy density that is not >>>>>>>>>> observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different >>>>>>>>>> that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when >>>>>>>>>> they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really >>>>>>>>>> exists. >>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have >>>>>>>>>> decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the >>>>>>>>>> first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually >>>>>>>>>> happy to discuss the scientific details in a less >>>>>>>>>> confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. >>>>>>>>>> John M. >>>>>>>>>> *From:*General >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM >>>>>>>>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers >>>>>>>>>> Dear John Macken, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. >>>>>>>>>> You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept >>>>>>>>>> that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists >>>>>>>>>> working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory >>>>>>>>>> is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of >>>>>>>>>> Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes >>>>>>>>>> inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of >>>>>>>>>> magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary >>>>>>>>>> particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs >>>>>>>>>> theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle >>>>>>>>>> even if all other parameters are known.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model >>>>>>>>>> explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea >>>>>>>>>> but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. >>>>>>>>>> The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. >>>>>>>>>> It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the >>>>>>>>>> verification is more difficult, due to the lack of >>>>>>>>>> measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also >>>>>>>>>> explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a >>>>>>>>>> photon is related to its wavelength. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego >>>>>>>>>> meeting, but also on the following web sites: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass >>>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the >>>>>>>>>> string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 >>>>>>>>>> of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 >>>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be >>>>>>>>>> happy about any discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With best regards >>>>>>>>>> Albrecht Giese >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: >>>>>>>>>>> Martin, >>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update >>>>>>>>>>> your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical >>>>>>>>>>> proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as >>>>>>>>>>> particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box >>>>>>>>>>> causes different photon pressure which results in a net >>>>>>>>>>> inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy >>>>>>>>>>> article in my book, but expanding the article would be even >>>>>>>>>>> better. An expanded article would have particular relevance >>>>>>>>>>> to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give >>>>>>>>>>> inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give >>>>>>>>>>> inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light >>>>>>>>>>> exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even >>>>>>>>>>> at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that >>>>>>>>>>> the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia >>>>>>>>>>> or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that >>>>>>>>>>> includes either a confined photon or confined waves in >>>>>>>>>>> spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and >>>>>>>>>>> kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in >>>>>>>>>>> a reflecting box. >>>>>>>>>>> John M. >>>>>>>>>>> *From:*General >>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM >>>>>>>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[General] research papers >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In particular you will find the most recent work: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces >>>>>>>>>>> * Quantum mechanical probability current as >>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Very 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 >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> 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 atphys at a-giese.de >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren >>>>>>>>>> gepr?ft. >>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Avast logo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature >>>>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List >>>>>>>> atrichgauthier at gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> >>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Avast logo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>>>> www.avast.com >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Avast logo >>>> >>>> >>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >>>> www.avast.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer >>>> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and >>>> Particles General Discussion List ataf.kracklauer at web.de >>>> Click here to >>>> unsubscribe >>>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer >>>> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and >>>> Particles General Discussion List ataf.kracklauer at web.de >>>> Click here to >>>> unsubscribe >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of >>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List >>>> atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com >>>> >>>> >>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> >>>> Click here to unsubscribe >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer >>> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles >>> General Discussion List ataf.kracklauer at web.de >>> Click here to >>> unsubscribe >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de >>> >> > >>> Click here to unsubscribe >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of >> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com >> >> > href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> >> Click here to unsubscribe >> > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Tue Sep 29 01:52:33 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:52:33 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> , <56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C66C3@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM To: Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Richard, you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad to answer them. Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (Rel*c), where Rel is the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the relativistic momentum of the electron. (This is all described in my web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass ; you can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be the number one.) However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m. So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which also explains a lot else. Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation. Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Albrecht, Al, Martin et al One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I?m not sure about John M?s electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron. Just as a photon?s wavelength (and presumably also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E with a photon?s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius of the charged photon?s helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with respect to our models. I don?t know if Albrecht?s electron model decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht?s model doesn?t I think take into account that the electron?s total energy increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the experimentally measured moving electron?s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his electron model?s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model?s size should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.?s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron?s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Richard On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Albrecht: In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif. The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this. It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. Regards John Duffield From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hi Martin, Al, and all, thank you all for your contributions. Regarding the size of the electron: As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? Regarding dilation: There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. Best wishes Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de: Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. Regards, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de" > het volgende geschreven: Dear Martin, Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de> An: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? h units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? h for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, h and eo testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and eo is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ 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 phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From af.kracklauer at web.de Tue Sep 29 09:50:41 2015 From: af.kracklauer at web.de (af.kracklauer at web.de) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:50:41 +0200 Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Sep 29 11:28:48 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:28:48 +0100 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C66C3@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> , <56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C66C3@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <001701d0fae4$b259ee30$170dca90$@btconnect.com> They aren?t little loops in space for me either. Start with Dirac?s belt , then imagine it?s a flat inner tube and pump it up to a torus then keep on pumping the torus until it resembles a sphere . Only there is no surface. That sphere depicts the wave path, and is more like the eye of the storm. Regards John D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: 29 September 2015 09:53 To: phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Richard Gauthier Cc: Joakim Pettersson ; Ariane Mandray ; Anthony Booth Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Regards, John W. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM To: Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Richard, you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad to answer them. Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (Rel*c), where Rel is the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the relativistic momentum of the electron. (This is all described in my web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass ; you can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be the number one.) However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m. So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which also explains a lot else. Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation. Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Albrecht, Al, Martin et al One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I?m not sure about John M?s electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron. Just as a photon?s wavelength (and presumably also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E with a photon?s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius of the charged photon?s helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with respect to our models. I don?t know if Albrecht?s electron model decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht?s model doesn?t I think take into account that the electron?s total energy increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the experimentally measured moving electron?s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his electron model?s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model?s size should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.?s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron?s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Richard On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield > wrote: Albrecht: In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif. The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this. It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. Regards John Duffield From: General [ mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hi Martin, Al, and all, thank you all for your contributions. Regarding the size of the electron: As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? Regarding dilation: There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. Best wishes Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de : Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. Regards, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de " < af.kracklauer at web.de> het volgende geschreven: Dear Martin, Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" > An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "phys at a-giese.de" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" > An: "Richard Gauthier" >, phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese > wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03 &tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer > wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? ? units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? ? for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? >From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, ? and ?o testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and ?o is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 _____ 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 phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _____ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Tue Sep 29 11:52:01 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:52:01 +0100 Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002801d0fae7$effd03f0$cff70bd0$@btconnect.com> Al: I recommend you read On Vortex Particles by David St John. IMHO those electron size experiments are something like hanging out of a helicopter, probing a whirlpool with a bargepole, and then saying I can?t feel the billiard ball, it must be really small. Regards John D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: 29 September 2015 17:51 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories Hi John: Only my "non expertise" in HEP mathches your espertise. In my professional progression I have been captured by the "building block" principle: why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling? This has constrained me to focusing on QM and SR. Anyway, I'm frequently surprised by how far what I have learned there takes me even in HEP (now and then). It turns out that someone posted the 97 paper Mark cited; too convenient to pass up, I took a look. Turns out I recognized it, I had read at it perhaps 10 years ago. Then, as again now, I found the idea of building the electron out of fields (a beloved idea for Einstein) flawed (in my view) the way certain concepts current in QM are. In short: fields are defined in terms of their inferred effect on infinitesimal "test charges." Without them, and the source charges, the current and charge in Maxwell's eqs. are zero and so then the fields too. Thus, one is straightaway in a circular ... This is at least a serious lexicographical problem---minimally we need a new word, "E&B-fields" wont do. Doesn't the term a "charged" photon (itself, un- or precharged, an inconsistently defined entity!) gets us even deeper into a linguistic black hole? Spin too, is another troubled notion; there is absolutely no evidence that any entity is (or has) spinning outside of a magnetic field. Point charges can't spin but they can gyrate; so if they do, as they must (per classical E&M), in a B/H field ... So why does it (your 97 electron model) work so well? I don't know, and can't take the time to figure it out without cutting into my current projects, but one has to recognize the possiblity that it is the inevitable consequence of a fortuotous choice of inputs, then, by the sort of logic exploited by dimensional analysis, every thing else just follows. Another factor perhaps in play here is a sort of dualism between particless and fields, much like that between lines and planes in projective geometry. If sheaths of particle trajecotiries are dual to particle motion, then fields (i.e., eviserated orbit patterns) capture the motion of the true ontological primative elements: particles. This sort of concept at least breaks out of the "circle". Regarding scattering, the issue motivating my injection to begin with; clearly a static point charge will look like a point charge. But, what bugs me, is that if the point target is moving uncontrollably and unknowably, but confined (basically) to a certain region,is it not possible, enevitable actually, that the scattering (statistically over many repeats) will evidence something of the "internal structure" of the uncontrolable motion, thus, for example, preventing the "resolution" of impuned internal structure. This would seem to me to lead to much confusion or mushy talk. Not so? Some of the liguistic dressing to various fundamental theories in physics these days, seems to me to actually be compatible with the imagery I'm suggesting, but never quite gat around to saying it clearly and explicitly---another large part of my motivation for responding to Mark's shot at Albrecht's doublets. Zitter forces: One fact, experimentally established as well as anything in physics, is that a charge is, as described by Gauss's Law, in interaction with every other charge in the universe, and, insofar as Gauss's Law has no "pause button," has been so since the big bang (modulao ntis) and will remain so until the big crunch. While many exterior charges are far away and reduced by 1/r^2, etc. they add up and there are quite a number of them! Thus, no electron, per John Dunn, is an island. In consequence, it zitters! Like the rest of us. Further, how would one "see" this scale of motion as such in a scattering experiment? Maybe it is beinng seen, it's the foggy structure preventing resolution of the imagined internals. Maybe we are well advised not to write off Albrecht's duals, even if he himself has little to say regarding their origin. Obviously, breaking up a single charge via scattering-type experiments cannot eject a virtual particle. It wouldn't acutally exist, it would be a stand-in for the effect of polarization of the remaing universe, moreover, as it all zitters to and fro. So far, I see no objection here expcept that this notion is not kosher sociologically! Fatal in career terms, but not logically. Enough for the moment, Best regards, Al Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. September 2015 um 10:52 Uhr Von: "John Williamson" > An: "phys at a-giese.de " >, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "Richard Gauthier" > Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" >, "Ariane Mandray" >, "Anthony Booth" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Regards, John W. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Tue Sep 29 01:48:14 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:48:14 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: <56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> , <56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C66B0@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Gotta go ... need to sort out tutorials ... Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM To: Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Richard, you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad to answer them. Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (Rel*c), where Rel is the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the relativistic momentum of the electron. (This is all described in my web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass ; you can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be the number one.) However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m. So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which also explains a lot else. Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation. Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Albrecht, Al, Martin et al One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I?m not sure about John M?s electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron. Just as a photon?s wavelength (and presumably also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E with a photon?s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius of the charged photon?s helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with respect to our models. I don?t know if Albrecht?s electron model decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht?s model doesn?t I think take into account that the electron?s total energy increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the experimentally measured moving electron?s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his electron model?s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model?s size should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.?s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron?s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Richard On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Albrecht: In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif. The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this. It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. Regards John Duffield From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hi Martin, Al, and all, thank you all for your contributions. Regarding the size of the electron: As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? Regarding dilation: There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. Best wishes Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de: Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. Regards, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de" > het volgende geschreven: Dear Martin, Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de> An: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? h units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? h for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, h and eo testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and eo is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ 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 phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Tue Sep 29 18:02:08 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 01:02:08 +0000 Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories In-Reply-To: <002801d0fae7$effd03f0$cff70bd0$@btconnect.com> References: , <002801d0fae7$effd03f0$cff70bd0$@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C6792@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Haha .. good analogy John. I am having a very good laugh here! May I use this one? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:52 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories Al: I recommend you read On Vortex Particles by David St John. IMHO those electron size experiments are something like hanging out of a helicopter, probing a whirlpool with a bargepole, and then saying I can?t feel the billiard ball, it must be really small. Regards John D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: 29 September 2015 17:51 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories Hi John: Only my "non expertise" in HEP mathches your espertise. In my professional progression I have been captured by the "building block" principle: why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling? This has constrained me to focusing on QM and SR. Anyway, I'm frequently surprised by how far what I have learned there takes me even in HEP (now and then). It turns out that someone posted the 97 paper Mark cited; too convenient to pass up, I took a look. Turns out I recognized it, I had read at it perhaps 10 years ago. Then, as again now, I found the idea of building the electron out of fields (a beloved idea for Einstein) flawed (in my view) the way certain concepts current in QM are. In short: fields are defined in terms of their inferred effect on infinitesimal "test charges." Without them, and the source charges, the current and charge in Maxwell's eqs. are zero and so then the fields too. Thus, one is straightaway in a circular ... This is at least a serious lexicographical problem---minimally we need a new word, "E&B-fields" wont do. Doesn't the term a "charged" photon (itself, un- or precharged, an inconsistently defined entity!) gets us even deeper into a linguistic black hole? Spin too, is another troubled notion; there is absolutely no evidence that any entity is (or has) spinning outside of a magnetic field. Point charges can't spin but they can gyrate; so if they do, as they must (per classical E&M), in a B/H field ... So why does it (your 97 electron model) work so well? I don't know, and can't take the time to figure it out without cutting into my current projects, but one has to recognize the possiblity that it is the inevitable consequence of a fortuotous choice of inputs, then, by the sort of logic exploited by dimensional analysis, every thing else just follows. Another factor perhaps in play here is a sort of dualism between particless and fields, much like that between lines and planes in projective geometry. If sheaths of particle trajecotiries are dual to particle motion, then fields (i.e., eviserated orbit patterns) capture the motion of the true ontological primative elements: particles. This sort of concept at least breaks out of the "circle". Regarding scattering, the issue motivating my injection to begin with; clearly a static point charge will look like a point charge. But, what bugs me, is that if the point target is moving uncontrollably and unknowably, but confined (basically) to a certain region,is it not possible, enevitable actually, that the scattering (statistically over many repeats) will evidence something of the "internal structure" of the uncontrolable motion, thus, for example, preventing the "resolution" of impuned internal structure. This would seem to me to lead to much confusion or mushy talk. Not so? Some of the liguistic dressing to various fundamental theories in physics these days, seems to me to actually be compatible with the imagery I'm suggesting, but never quite gat around to saying it clearly and explicitly---another large part of my motivation for responding to Mark's shot at Albrecht's doublets. Zitter forces: One fact, experimentally established as well as anything in physics, is that a charge is, as described by Gauss's Law, in interaction with every other charge in the universe, and, insofar as Gauss's Law has no "pause button," has been so since the big bang (modulao ntis) and will remain so until the big crunch. While many exterior charges are far away and reduced by 1/r^2, etc. they add up and there are quite a number of them! Thus, no electron, per John Dunn, is an island. In consequence, it zitters! Like the rest of us. Further, how would one "see" this scale of motion as such in a scattering experiment? Maybe it is beinng seen, it's the foggy structure preventing resolution of the imagined internals. Maybe we are well advised not to write off Albrecht's duals, even if he himself has little to say regarding their origin. Obviously, breaking up a single charge via scattering-type experiments cannot eject a virtual particle. It wouldn't acutally exist, it would be a stand-in for the effect of polarization of the remaing universe, moreover, as it all zitters to and fro. So far, I see no objection here expcept that this notion is not kosher sociologically! Fatal in career terms, but not logically. Enough for the moment, Best regards, Al Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. September 2015 um 10:52 Uhr Von: "John Williamson" > An: "phys at a-giese.de" >, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "Richard Gauthier" > Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" >, "Ariane Mandray" >, "Anthony Booth" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Regards, John W. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Tue Sep 29 21:48:54 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:48:54 +0000 Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C6792@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: , <002801d0fae7$effd03f0$cff70bd0$@btconnect.com>, <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C6792@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C67AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Hello Al, Thanks for your well-considered reply. This picks up on an unfinished conversation in San Diego, in the early hours in the bar at Hotel Solamar, between you and me and a few others on the ontological basis of reality. You were saying some very interesting things, but we had distraction from others, ran out of time and we were both, by then, a little the worse for wear. My feeling is that you went pretty deep ? but not yet quite deep enough. You and me both! Perhaps we can help one another. I take your point about the hypothetical ?charged test particle? beloved of text books. Unfortunately, no such particle exists with which to probe stuff. The lightest stable particle we have is the electron, the smallest the proton. Muons are useful in that they are far smaller than the electron, long lived enough to be useful and far simpler than the proton. It was fun playing with 200 GeV muons in my youth ? but that does not give all the answers either as one remains a monkey ? essentially banging the rocks together and going OOOH! at whatever comes out. I like your argument about the ontological basis being of (as I understood it late that night ? though forgive me if this is far too simple) trajectories in space through time and I think one can, indeed, get a long way thinking from this basis. Unfortunately, in experiment, it is usually energy and momentum that one measures directly and not (the conjugate variables) space and time. One knows the energy (and momentum) of a photon fairly precisely, but have correspondingly far less information about its time (and position). Yo ? that photon hit me ? it was blue and it came from that direction. Likewise, in a high energy scattering experiment, one gets the energy and momentum of all the particles pretty precisely, that the interaction was point-like down to 10-18m, but one (even with the best photographic emulsions) only gets the position to within a micron or so. This is 36 orders of magnitude of uncertainty in a volume!. Not good for fixing a trajectory! Coming back to theory. I could not agree more with - ?why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling??. This is exactly the point. Indeed, the discussion in our 1997 paper does not go nearly far enough. This work is, however, nearly two decades ago. We have moved on a long way since then. I am still proud of it, but it is certainly not the whole story. In that work the basis was not fields as you suggest, however, but rather, starting from our best view then of the ?photon?, the ?what if? of considering the electron as a (self) localised photon. Fields are far more complex than space and time themselves and famously hard to understand. No wonder: who really understands even just space and time? The 1997 paper even if ?correct? in principle within its starting framework, immediately begs the question of ?what is a photon?. A question Chandra, you and all of you have been discussing for a decade or more in this series. Of course it works: electron-positron pairs do annihilate experimentally into photons and the numbers must match up even if the theories are incapable of describing the continuous transformation properties of one into the other. The challenge is to a) realise that light and matter are fundamentally the same thing and b) get to an over-arching theory describing both properly. Even if we do get the photon, for example, in terms of the fields, this will still leave the question of ?what are the fields??, as you so correctly point out. It is, perhaps, the reason that our earlier paper has ?only? 39 citations (on Google scholar), as opposed to more than thousands in my most cited papers in the other two fields in which I have worked professionally. Too many loose ends. It just does not go far enough into the basis. I think that, fundamentally, as you, Chip and Viv have argued (amongst others ? myself and Martin included) it will need to be understood in terms of (at least projections onto) the four dimensions of space and time. The question then comes down to us, creatures imbedded in that space and time, to try to understand the framework in which we exist. This is well-known to be problematical philosophically (Witgensteion, Godel etc..) but what can you do? We are stuck where we are and must make the best of it! My SPIE papers try to address this by proposing (as is conventional) that the fields are derivatives of some aspect of space with respect to time (and vice versa). This is at a level more fundamental then even space and time by themselves: it leaves the question of what the derivatives in the mathematics represent in reality. These are, as expressed in the mathematics, a division of a little bit of a quantity in space by a little bit of a quantity of time (or vice-versa). Note carefully the ?in? and the ?of? in the last sentence. For example the electric field E = dA/dt, where A is the vector potential. So then: what is the vector potential? Now I have (not very good) papers on the measurement of the physical effect of the vector potential (Loosdrecht first author if you want to look them up ? but there are better papers out there) but what is the vector potential, really, physically? For Maxwell, it was the same physical thing as the (continuous) current, in the same way that the Electric field and Electric displacement are representations of the same thing in free space (see his textbook, whose original version predates the discovery of the electron). A better representation these days would be the 4-vector potential and the 4-current density (charge and 3-current density). Even if these are equated and understood as continuous underlying quantities the problem is then: why is charge (or A0) quantised in physical ?particles? such as the electron. For me, the answer to this is sketched in the two papers to SPIE to be read together with Martin and my 1997 paper. Briefly: light is quantised because otherwise it does not propagate. Charge is then quantised because it is then (self) localised circulating light plus mass ? and one can then (with proper modelling) calculate the charge. I?m not going to attempt to repeat these arguments here as they are far better explained in those three papers. This is all very well but there remain (at least) two problems. Firstly, what does it mean physically to divide one part of a four-vector by another part of the same four-vector (as in the mathematical definition of ?field?). Secondly, what is ?division? in this context anyway? Every (human) monkey thinks they know what ?division? is ? but most monkeys do not go beyond a proper understanding of the division of mere numbers. This is what I would call ?arithmetic?. One needs to understand the electr-on the prot-on and the divisi-on. All are hard! Now Martin and wrote a paper initially entitled ?On division and the algebra of reality? about a decade ago. We made two or three attempts to get it published ? but it was rejected on such grounds as ?there is no conceivable application in physics?. By the time this was over we had moved on to other things, though the paper has a few citations (don?t know how ? it is not out there!). This may be a topic, if we do not get it anywhere else, for SPIE in two years time. Coming back to following science. I have, like you for me, not delved as deeply into your papers as they should merit. The papers of yours I have read, however, I have thoroughly enjoyed. I think it would be good to continue this conversation and see where it gets us. For that we need some proper time. In the second half of November and the first two thirds of December I can travel. I would like to spend some of this visiting Martin for one of our sessions, and Tony Booth (who is based in Brussels). During this it would be good to arrange talks in the vicinity at some of the Dutch, Belgian and German Universities. Any chance I can spend a few days with you, or in the vicinity? Gotta go ? get ready to get to work ? Cheers for now, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:02 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories Haha .. good analogy John. I am having a very good laugh here! May I use this one? Regards, John. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:52 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories Al: I recommend you read On Vortex Particles by David St John. IMHO those electron size experiments are something like hanging out of a helicopter, probing a whirlpool with a bargepole, and then saying I can?t feel the billiard ball, it must be really small. Regards John D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: 29 September 2015 17:51 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories Hi John: Only my "non expertise" in HEP mathches your espertise. In my professional progression I have been captured by the "building block" principle: why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling? This has constrained me to focusing on QM and SR. Anyway, I'm frequently surprised by how far what I have learned there takes me even in HEP (now and then). It turns out that someone posted the 97 paper Mark cited; too convenient to pass up, I took a look. Turns out I recognized it, I had read at it perhaps 10 years ago. Then, as again now, I found the idea of building the electron out of fields (a beloved idea for Einstein) flawed (in my view) the way certain concepts current in QM are. In short: fields are defined in terms of their inferred effect on infinitesimal "test charges." Without them, and the source charges, the current and charge in Maxwell's eqs. are zero and so then the fields too. Thus, one is straightaway in a circular ... This is at least a serious lexicographical problem---minimally we need a new word, "E&B-fields" wont do. Doesn't the term a "charged" photon (itself, un- or precharged, an inconsistently defined entity!) gets us even deeper into a linguistic black hole? Spin too, is another troubled notion; there is absolutely no evidence that any entity is (or has) spinning outside of a magnetic field. Point charges can't spin but they can gyrate; so if they do, as they must (per classical E&M), in a B/H field ... So why does it (your 97 electron model) work so well? I don't know, and can't take the time to figure it out without cutting into my current projects, but one has to recognize the possiblity that it is the inevitable consequence of a fortuotous choice of inputs, then, by the sort of logic exploited by dimensional analysis, every thing else just follows. Another factor perhaps in play here is a sort of dualism between particless and fields, much like that between lines and planes in projective geometry. If sheaths of particle trajecotiries are dual to particle motion, then fields (i.e., eviserated orbit patterns) capture the motion of the true ontological primative elements: particles. This sort of concept at least breaks out of the "circle". Regarding scattering, the issue motivating my injection to begin with; clearly a static point charge will look like a point charge. But, what bugs me, is that if the point target is moving uncontrollably and unknowably, but confined (basically) to a certain region,is it not possible, enevitable actually, that the scattering (statistically over many repeats) will evidence something of the "internal structure" of the uncontrolable motion, thus, for example, preventing the "resolution" of impuned internal structure. This would seem to me to lead to much confusion or mushy talk. Not so? Some of the liguistic dressing to various fundamental theories in physics these days, seems to me to actually be compatible with the imagery I'm suggesting, but never quite gat around to saying it clearly and explicitly---another large part of my motivation for responding to Mark's shot at Albrecht's doublets. Zitter forces: One fact, experimentally established as well as anything in physics, is that a charge is, as described by Gauss's Law, in interaction with every other charge in the universe, and, insofar as Gauss's Law has no "pause button," has been so since the big bang (modulao ntis) and will remain so until the big crunch. While many exterior charges are far away and reduced by 1/r^2, etc. they add up and there are quite a number of them! Thus, no electron, per John Dunn, is an island. In consequence, it zitters! Like the rest of us. Further, how would one "see" this scale of motion as such in a scattering experiment? Maybe it is beinng seen, it's the foggy structure preventing resolution of the imagined internals. Maybe we are well advised not to write off Albrecht's duals, even if he himself has little to say regarding their origin. Obviously, breaking up a single charge via scattering-type experiments cannot eject a virtual particle. It wouldn't acutally exist, it would be a stand-in for the effect of polarization of the remaing universe, moreover, as it all zitters to and fro. So far, I see no objection here expcept that this notion is not kosher sociologically! Fatal in career terms, but not logically. Enough for the moment, Best regards, Al Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. September 2015 um 10:52 Uhr Von: "John Williamson" > An: "phys at a-giese.de" >, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "Richard Gauthier" > Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" >, "Ariane Mandray" >, "Anthony Booth" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Regards, John W. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk Tue Sep 29 21:53:55 2015 From: John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk (John Williamson) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:53:55 +0000 Subject: [General] research papers In-Reply-To: References: <8300760b83924df9a4c19016cebf15f7@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <002901d0e730$65373df0$2fa5b9d0$@macken.com> <55F306A8.6040109@a-giese.de> <003d01d0ecdc$13c1c290$3b4547b0$@macken.com> <55F5DFD2.2090507@a-giese.de> <007301d0ee87$df0903d0$9d1b0b70$@macken.com> <55F723F0.3080200@a-giese.de> <55F9CA09.7070803@nascentinc.com> <56019A2C.5040500@a-giese.de> <9DDFD39F-8EC1-4624-955C-8233B7DBDD40@gmail.com> <560546C1.80203@a-giese.de> <92F53C21-3324-48A0-AB16-95E4B759895E@philips.com> <5606AF9B.8060102@a-giese.de> <003301d0f874$16232080$42696180$@btconnect.com> <,<56095F3D.70200@a-giese.de> <>> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C66B0@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk>, Message-ID: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C67C1@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Dear Richard, You are welcome. The deeper level of reality is so beautiful - even more so than the (already beautiful) transformations of special relativity by itself that it is well-worth understanding. Regards, John. ________________________________ From: Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:08 AM To: John Williamson Cc: phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Joakim Pettersson; Adam K; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Kyran Williamson; Ariane Mandray; Manohar . Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John and Albrecht and all, Thanks John, I stand corrected on the issue of your electron model not falling off in lateral size as 1/gamma. Albrecht, I am still not satisfied with your electron model for a number of reasons: 1) no experimental evidence for multi-particle structure of the electron even at high energies. 2) your light-speed charged, massless circulating particles carry no resting inertia ? why not just call them circulating charged photons, and just have one of them rather than two, based on the lack of experimental evidence for multi-particle structure of the electron? 3) there is no clear model of a photon in your system (maybe I missed it) and how electron-positron pair production of your electron model and positron model would emerge from a single photon in the vicinity of a nucleus (a common method of pair production). 4) the two-dimensionality of your electron model. Delta x in the third dimension appears to be zero and delta Px in the third dimension is also zero. So delta x delta Px is also zero , a strong violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Is that a problem for your model? 5) the fact that your model?s lateral size doesn?t decrease as electron speed increases. Since the 2 particles still move at light speed, this would require that the frequency of their circulation will reduce, rather than increase as would be expected with the electron's increasing energy as its speed increases. That also leaves your high energy relativistic electron model about 100,000 times too big, compared with high energy electron scattering experiments. To say that electron scattering occurs in your model with only one of the two rotating point-like particles and the other is pulled along without inertial resistance doesn?t work for me and seems very non-physical. 6) the fact that the electron?s z-component of spin 1/2 hbar is not clearly present in your model whose radius is the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc and not the Dirac amplitude hbar/2mc which easily yields the electron?s spin 1/2 , zitterbewegung frequency, double-looping in a resting electron and the Dirac 720 degree rotational symmetry of the electron. (This is the same problem I see with John M?s electron model, which also doesn?t have a clear spin 1/2 hbar since its radius is also hbar/mc and not hbar/2mc .) 7) the wave nature of your model is not clear to me. What in your model produces the electron's quantum wave nature, and how does your moving electron model generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength quantitatively? Does it? You seem to accept the pilot wave concept of de Broglie-Bohm. Does your electron model display quantum non-locality and entanglement as Bohm?s does and which is also strongly experimentally supported? with best regards, Richard On Sep 29, 2015, at 1:48 AM, John Williamson > wrote: Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc ? HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration ? Now I hope you will not take this badly ? it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load ? At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Gotta go ... need to sort out tutorials ... Regards, John W. ________________________________ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM To: Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Richard, you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad to answer them. Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (Rel*c), where Rel is the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the relativistic momentum of the electron. (This is all described in my web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass ; you can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be the number one.) However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m. So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which also explains a lot else. Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation. Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Albrecht, Al, Martin et al One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I?m not sure about John M?s electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron. Just as a photon?s wavelength (and presumably also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E with a photon?s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius of the charged photon?s helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with respect to our models. I don?t know if Albrecht?s electron model decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht?s model doesn?t I think take into account that the electron?s total energy increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the experimentally measured moving electron?s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his electron model?s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model?s size should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.?s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron?s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg?s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Richard On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote: Albrecht: In case Martin is tied up, here?s his 1997 paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson. As regards electron size, it?s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals electrons ?exist as standing waves?. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn?t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It?s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif. The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn?t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water. Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it?s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don?t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don?t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this. It?s not the Nobel ?t Hooft. Regards John Duffield From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hi Martin, Al, and all, thank you all for your contributions. Regarding the size of the electron: As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models. This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schr?dinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schr?dinger this was an unsolvable conflict. I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schr?dinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schr?dinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation". On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments. Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997? Regarding dilation: There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples: - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity. Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation. Best wishes Albrecht Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de: Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it? BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck. Regards, Martin Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de" > het volgende geschreven: Dear Martin, Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip." You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all, In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately. Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht. The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin. The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results. Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy. 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05 To: phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] research papers Gentelmen: Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?) Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de> An: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, phys at a-giese.de Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Hello Richard, according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence. As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schr?dinger and of Wilczek based on QM. I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations. Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have. All the best to you Albrecht Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier: Hello Albrecht, Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac?s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon?s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc. all the best, Richard On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote: Dear Richard, thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek. He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schr?dinger has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in 1930. There Schr?dinger determined the "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron. In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schr?dinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles. Thank you again and best wishes Albrecht Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier: This 2013 Nature comment ?The enigmatic electron? by Frank Wilczek at http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the range of some of our electron models. Richard On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote: I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the one not available on the web sight. I was looking for a similar one that included the other topics as well. If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper. best wishes, Wolf Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote: John, You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text. Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken: Hello David and Albrecht, It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term ?energy?. Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single ?spacetime field? which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word ?quantizing? in either the email or the attachment to my last post. However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word ?quantization?. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/ Albrecht: I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word ?quantify? and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe ?quantifies? particles and fields. I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not ?quantify? particles and fields. There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls ?charges of the strong force?. Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges. The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric charge in the basic particle. The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles. The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the correct result. As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes. I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers. So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle?s Compton frequency. I am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For example, I cannot calculate the electron?s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing a muon?s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon. I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics. Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result of other models (however not of mainstream physics). My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ? h units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant. How do you get the value ? h for the angular momentum? What is the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha? I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity). The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle?s gravitational field are obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density). In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the ?background noise? of the universe. For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy. The constants c, G, h and eo testify that spacetime is not an empty void. Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point. The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern. The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force has to be described by a field constant); and eo is the field constant of the electric force with a similar background. If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c. How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void. My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component. The universe is only spacetime. If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime. John M. Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I am afraid. Albrecht From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM To: John Macken ; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' > Subject: Re: [General] research papers Hello John, great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you. There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is. In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results. To your questions in detail: The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts. The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schr?dinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions. This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail. The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions. Best regards Albrecht Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken: Hello Albrecht and All, I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model. Albrecht: I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two ?basic particles?. Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model? These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists. Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org Subject: Re: [General] research papers Dear John Macken, I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions". We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference: >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< , which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.) As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites: www.ag-physics.org/rmass www.ag-physics.org/electron . You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years. If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion. With best regards Albrecht Giese Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken: Martin, I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article ?Light Is Heavy? to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better. An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box. John M. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] research papers Dear all, My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications In particular you will find the most recent work: * On the nature of ?stuff? and the hierarchy of forces * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields Very 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 ________________________________ 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 phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com ________________________________ [Avast logo] Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ 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 Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de > Click here to unsubscribe _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnduffield at btconnect.com Wed Sep 30 00:18:02 2015 From: johnduffield at btconnect.com (John Duffield) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:18:02 +0100 Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories In-Reply-To: <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C6792@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> References: , <002801d0fae7$effd03f0$cff70bd0$@btconnect.com> <7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C6792@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk> Message-ID: <001101d0fb50$26ab7270$74025750$@btconnect.com> You certainly may! From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson Sent: 30 September 2015 02:02 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories Haha .. good analogy John. I am having a very good laugh here! May I use this one? Regards, John. _____ From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl es.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:52 PM To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories Al: I recommend you read On Vortex Particles by David St John. IMHO those electron size experiments are something like hanging out of a helicopter, probing a whirlpool with a bargepole, and then saying I can?t feel the billiard ball, it must be really small. Regards John D From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar ticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de Sent: 29 September 2015 17:51 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion > Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories Hi John: Only my "non expertise" in HEP mathches your espertise. In my professional progression I have been captured by the "building block" principle: why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling? This has constrained me to focusing on QM and SR. Anyway, I'm frequently surprised by how far what I have learned there takes me even in HEP (now and then). It turns out that someone posted the 97 paper Mark cited; too convenient to pass up, I took a look. Turns out I recognized it, I had read at it perhaps 10 years ago. Then, as again now, I found the idea of building the electron out of fields (a beloved idea for Einstein) flawed (in my view) the way certain concepts current in QM are. In short: fields are defined in terms of their inferred effect on infinitesimal "test charges." Without them, and the source charges, the current and charge in Maxwell's eqs. are zero and so then the fields too. Thus, one is straightaway in a circular ... This is at least a serious lexicographical problem---minimally we need a new word, "E&B-fields" wont do. Doesn't the term a "charged" photon (itself, un- or precharged, an inconsistently defined entity!) gets us even deeper into a linguistic black hole? Spin too, is another troubled notion; there is absolutely no evidence that any entity is (or has) spinning outside of a magnetic field. Point charges can't spin but they can gyrate; so if they do, as they must (per classical E&M), in a B/H field ... So why does it (your 97 electron model) work so well? I don't know, and can't take the time to figure it out without cutting into my current projects, but one has to recognize the possiblity that it is the inevitable consequence of a fortuotous choice of inputs, then, by the sort of logic exploited by dimensional analysis, every thing else just follows. Another factor perhaps in play here is a sort of dualism between particless and fields, much like that between lines and planes in projective geometry. If sheaths of particle trajecotiries are dual to particle motion, then fields (i.e., eviserated orbit patterns) capture the motion of the true ontological primative elements: particles. This sort of concept at least breaks out of the "circle". Regarding scattering, the issue motivating my injection to begin with; clearly a static point charge will look like a point charge. But, what bugs me, is that if the point target is moving uncontrollably and unknowably, but confined (basically) to a certain region,is it not possible, enevitable actually, that the scattering (statistically over many repeats) will evidence something of the "internal structure" of the uncontrolable motion, thus, for example, preventing the "resolution" of impuned internal structure. This would seem to me to lead to much confusion or mushy talk. Not so? Some of the liguistic dressing to various fundamental theories in physics these days, seems to me to actually be compatible with the imagery I'm suggesting, but never quite gat around to saying it clearly and explicitly---another large part of my motivation for responding to Mark's shot at Albrecht's doublets. Zitter forces: One fact, experimentally established as well as anything in physics, is that a charge is, as described by Gauss's Law, in interaction with every other charge in the universe, and, insofar as Gauss's Law has no "pause button," has been so since the big bang (modulao ntis) and will remain so until the big crunch. While many exterior charges are far away and reduced by 1/r^2, etc. they add up and there are quite a number of them! Thus, no electron, per John Dunn, is an island. In consequence, it zitters! Like the rest of us. Further, how would one "see" this scale of motion as such in a scattering experiment? Maybe it is beinng seen, it's the foggy structure preventing resolution of the imagined internals. Maybe we are well advised not to write off Albrecht's duals, even if he himself has little to say regarding their origin. Obviously, breaking up a single charge via scattering-type experiments cannot eject a virtual particle. It wouldn't acutally exist, it would be a stand-in for the effect of polarization of the remaing universe, moreover, as it all zitters to and fro. So far, I see no objection here expcept that this notion is not kosher sociologically! Fatal in career terms, but not logically. Enough for the moment, Best regards, Al Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. September 2015 um 10:52 Uhr Von: "John Williamson" > An: "phys at a-giese.de " >, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" >, "Richard Gauthier" > Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" >, "Ariane Mandray" >, "Anthony Booth" > Betreff: Re: [General] research papers Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard, I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I?m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD?s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity. I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment ? and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our ?information? technology culture. You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have. I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that ?no experiment resolves the electron size?. This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano ? my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome! Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment. I take your point ? and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean. So what I am about to say is not going to be ?shooting from the hip?, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration Now I hope you will not take this badly it is fun to think about this but here goes Here is what you said (making you blue): You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not. Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point! The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close. True, So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date). Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also ? I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out! Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not? Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it ?zitter?. More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is ?point-like? and not ?point? scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like ? not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon ? not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president! That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point. This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about. Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs. Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as ?image charges? used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don?t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies. I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account. You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal? The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery ? on the basis of an ?electron as a localised photon?. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer! Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma ? and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this. Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I?m pretty sure Martin would (largely ? though not completely) agree me here. I have said this many times to you ? though perhaps not specifically enough. It is not quite wrong ? but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my ?Light? paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ?( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin?s ?Light is Heavy? paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see. The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant ? but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m) and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in. One does not see internal structure because of this effect ? and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite ? like a proton (and Albrecht?s model). Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) ? so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure ? some interesting resonances and an effective ?size? of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called ?partons?. Initially, this was the basis ?incorrect in my view ? of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally! Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D ? this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop ? it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this ? from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in ?momentum space? though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in ? all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are ?space?. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct ? as the DESY director said and as I said in the ?panel? discussion- that one would not ?see? this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I?m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though! Regards, John W. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: