[General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass

Sat Jun 4 13:06:39 PDT 2016

Adam: You have raised several questions (issues). So, my reply is embedded within your original email below (in green):
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 5:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
Subject: Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass

Chandra,

I also read Huygen's book on Gutenberg in the same year! (2014) Your comment about theoretical physics being behind engineering made me think of the first line from Carver Mead's book:

It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.

Incidentally, Carver Mead is another person with a ton of practical experience working with electronics who is suspicious of photons.
====================
 Your observation about Carver Mead is correct. That is why I had invited him as the Keynote Speaker for or 2013- “What are photons?” conference. Marlan Scully was the last year’s Keynote Speaker. Carver learned QM from Feynman!
===================
Superposed wave amplitudes cannot induce energy re-distribution upon themselves.

This is a very sharp expression of a fundamental difficulty.
====================
Yes, it is a “sharp statement”. You should get your university to buy my book, “Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves”, Taylor and Francis, 2014. I had to re-discover the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) while trying to understand the “physics” behind Huygens-Fresnel (HF) near field becoming Fraunhofer’s far-field as the Fourier transform of the “amplitude aperture function”. [Of course, Huygens postulated this NIW property over 300 years earlier.] Why Fourier transform? In the far field, the HF secondary circular wavelets, emerging out of the aperture, become a linear summation (superposition) plane wavelets with continuous tilts (within the 5-degree field covered by the inclination factor). Mathematically, the general HF integral morphs into a Fourier Transform-like integral. Since the “far-field condition” can also be generated by a lens at its focal plane; optical engineers are immensely happy to use Goodman’s “Fourier Optics” to carry out all sorts of imaging analysis.

Making more sharp statements. Superposition Principle (SP), the summation of wave amplitudes, is not observable effect in the optical domain. Visible (quantum) detectors display the Superposition Effect (SE) after they carry out the nonlinear quadratic operation, square modulus of the sum of all the dipolar stimulations induced in it by all  the simultaneously present wave amplitudes. See my book, “Causal Physics”. You will find many more strong statements.
===================
It seems everyone on this list (and everyone involved in thinking about these matters) needs energy to be confined. There must be some sort of circulation, some a priori force holding things together, etc. Either we are stuck multiplying onta in the universe (there are particles, and waves, and some glue, plus these rods plus ...) or we try to work only with waves. So the waves need to interact in some way to model particles. And yet they pass through each other! The linearity of the fundamental differential equation derived by Euler in 1759 is inescapable.
====================
 I am attaching an article where the old ether field is modified into a Complex Tension Filed (CTF) to accommodate (i) perpetually propagating EM waves as linear excitations of the CTF; and (ii) localized particles as non-linearly excited self-looped oscillations of the same CTF.  100% energy is still held by the CTF. EM waves and particles are its excited states of different kinds; they do not exist independently, separate from CTF. This is the biggest problem of modern physics in its inability to formulate a unified field theory.

The emergence of particles as excitation of the same “ether field” has been proposed by many scientists. However, nobody has yet developed a self-consistent mathematical model for the two key stable particles, electrons and protons. Our group (this web) has been working on modeling the electron from various angles. All of them do not agree with a unifying single “ether field” (CTF), not yet! Diversity is healthy.
===================
I am presently writing about the Huygens-Fresnel integral in my PhD thesis. I too am amazed at how such a simple fuzzy idea, once clothed in mathematical form, has survived daily use for 200 years essentially unchanged. I am extremely interested in your comment that optical engineers do not use any of the discrete quanta machinery of quantum theory and instead rely entirely on Huygens-Fresnel.  On reflection, this makes sense, because the Schrodinger equation for a photon is just... Maxwell's equations. Right? But for all practical purposes it seems people use Huygens-Fresnel, which just reduces to the wave equation.

Does everybody just wave (haha) their hands when it comes to the difference between a scalar diffraction theory and the 'real' vectorial theory? I keep seeing this happening in my reading. The scalar theory is excellent, and evidently Kottler proved the vectorial theory is consistent, but I am unaware of anyone working with it. Also, everyone talks about how Kirchhoff put Huygens-Fresnel on a firm mathematical foundation, and yet his integral is mathematically inconsistent! What is your feeling about the Kirchhoff diffraction integral as compared to HF?
====================
 Vector vs. scalar diffraction theory becomes relevant where the E-vector of the incident EM wave encounters material dipoles; which are not completely free to oscillate along its own vectorial direction.
===================

Adam

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
Adam: Here is a bit more comparative information to energize you further!
Both Newton’s and Einstein’s precise mathematical formulation of gravity fail to predict the measured velocity distribution curves for stars in hundreds of galaxies (star velocity variations from the center to the outer periphery of a galaxy). That is why we have postulated the existence of Dark Matter but cannot find it!

But, Huygens fuzzy-logic postulate has been giving us all the engineering precision so far we have demanded out all possible classical optical applications.
I think Huygens’ accomplishment in physics is non-trivial. We need to understand why, in relation to our modern Physics-Thinking! Huygens did not use any equation to present his ideas; only some diagrams for the secondary wavelets.

It took me many sophisticated experiments to convince myself of the universality of non-interaction of wave amplitudes – they evolve and propagate through each other unperturbed. The energy re-distributions (or superposition fringes) appear only after a detector array carries out the non-linear square modulus operation when placed at some plane in the forward diffraction field of the HF integral. Superposed wave amplitudes cannot induce energy re-distribution upon themselves.

Then, in 2013, or 2014, I found a Gutenberg Press translation of Huygens’ original book, where he categorically states that his secondary wavelets evolve as expanding and overlapping circular wave fronts unperturbed by each other. How silly of all of us that Fresnel, in his 1818 formulation of Huygens principle in the famous diffraction integral, embeds this non-interaction between the secondary wave amplitudes; but we still do not want to accept it! This has been causing us to unnecessarily live with the confusion of “wave-particle duality” for a century now!

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchandra.roychoudhuri>=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 5:53 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>

Subject: Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass

Chandra,

Nice email! I have some ideas on the question you pose in the last paragraph. I will gather them sometime. As for your dates: Fresnel: 1818. You were off by 3 years. Huygens: 1678. Spot on.

Adam

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
Hi Chip:
You certainly have added some novel elements to model “photon” having possibly both “transverse” and “longitudinal velocities.
Are there any related experiments?
The field of precision optical engineering is far more advanced than theoretical physics, demonstrated through the progress in nano photonics and plasmonic photonics. Can you identify something that these optical engineers might able to measure and discern something positively?

Remember, our Knowledge Age, ushered in by laying down global fiber optic network, which is driven by laser light from semiconductor devices. None of the involved engineers ever tried to propagate light as “indivisible quanta”. These fantastic advancements in communications were not held up due to our lack of any proper quantum equation to propagate “quantized photon”! They are happy that all the precision they need is available from Huygens-Fresnel wave propagation integral, presented by Fresnel during the first quarter of the nineteenth century (1815?)  using the Huygens postulate of secondary wave lets, presented during the third quarter of the seventeenth century (1678?).

The question is as follows:  Why is the HF propagation integral is continuing to be so successful even today; but we cannot provide anything better mathematical tool to optical engineers with so much knowledge about “indivisible light quanta”; even though Huygens postulate of “secondary wavelets” resemble some fuzzy-logic, or some educated guess?

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchandra.roychoudhuri>=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:58 PM
To: 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass

Hi John

I have a few questions regarding your experiment.
What was the wavelength [cid:image001.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590] of the laser used? For example, if it was a red laser it was probably in the range of 650nm wavelength.  The width of the slits? The distance from the laser to the slits and to the target?

The reason I am asking has to do with the quantization of light.  If we assume that Planck’s constant is the quantization of action, and that a single photon has spin angular momentum of hbar, then the effective spin radius of this construct (photon particle) is the wavelength divided by 2 pi.

Then if we assume that transverse waves do indeed travel at the speed of light in space, but that there could also be associated longitudinal waves, which remain principally undetected by normal instrumentation, then we can consider at the following:

As we study transverse waves in an elastic solid medium we see that the velocity of propagation of a transverse wave is:
[cid:image002.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590]
Where [cid:image003.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590] is the propagation velocity of the transverse wave, [cid:image004.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590] is the shear modulus, and p is the density of the medium.
Longitudinal displacements or longitudinal waves simply travel faster in every known elastic solid medium.

Longitudinal propagation velocity is expressed as:
[cid:image005.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590]
Where [cid:image006.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590] is the propagation velocity of the longitudinal wave or displacement, and K is the compression modulus.
Since both the K modulus and [cid:image007.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590] modulus are always positive we can see that the longitudinal displacement propagation velocity will always be faster than the transverse wave velocity: [cid:image008.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590] is always larger than [cid:image009.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590]

So I am wondering if the photon is a tightly confined rotational transverse wave, with a radius expressed as  [cid:image010.png at 01D1BE75.A2EDF590]   which also has a small associated longitudinal wave component acting as a "pilot" wave.

For a red laser the speculated radius of a photon would be 103.45nm so its diameter would be 206.9nm.

Your thoughts?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:42 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass

Vivian Robinson:
I suggest the following experiment does separate the inertial and gravitational aspects of mass.

Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719

The proposed photon model predicted this experiment. Some of the required postulates to make the model match experimental observations are to separate the inertial and gravitational mass. No other model of the photon or of diffraction fits the observation.

The diffraction model also explains the “walking drop” observation of Fig. 5c in Bush,~J.W.M., 2015, The new wave of pilot-wave theory, Physics Today, 68(8), 47
http://newfos.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Pilot_Waves_Phys_Today_Aug_2015.pdf
wherein the inertia of the medium allows the wave to reflect and influence the drop that caused the wave. Compare Fig. 5c of Bush with Fig. 1 of “Diffraction experiment …”

Hodge

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 358 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1156 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 376 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 338 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1931 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 407 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1199 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 426 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 453139 bytes
Desc: 2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160604/8dc84c59/attachment.pdf>