[General] Gravity
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Sep 12 07:59:38 PDT 2016
Hi Al:
" "Photons" (given anybody's definition) cannot be directly an object
of observation. PEROID. "
In this case please explain the corresponding process in my experiment,
i.e. the detection of photons by pair production where all necessary
physical quantities for an individual photon have been conserved. The
distance between generation and detection was about 10 m.
And hi Chandra:
Why can we not assume that the particles "photons" have a "pilot wave"
in the sense of de Broglie around them as similarly have e.g. electrons
and neutrons? And those pilot waves follow similar rules like the
Maxwell equations?
Albrecht
Am 12.09.2016 um 02:26 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi all:
> To respond to Chndra's request, consider:
> "Photons" (given anybody's definition) cannot be directly an object
> of observation. PEROID. What is actually seen and manupulated "in
> the lab" are photo electrons. This is true at both ends: generation
> and detection. An obvious consequence of this reality is that, what
> observations and theories address in NOT photons or waves at all, but
> streams of so-called photo-electrons (photocurrents, etc.) From what
> is seen of such photocurrents then, it is SURMISED what caused the
> observed behaviour---which is, in principle, guesswork, alogical.
> Further, insofar as electrons are themselves "quantized" their
> behaviour is necessarily that of collections of countable entities.
> So much is tautological. In the end, humankind does not know the
> true nature of the interaction of charged particles; the best that can
> be done is to seek to procure self consistent matmematical
> descriptions of the behviour of charge particle streams at both end of
> the interaction.
> The accumulatedd volklore abut charged particle interaction mostly
> fails totally to take these consdierations consistently into account.
> Compton and whoever else, notwithstanding.
> For what it's worth, Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 11. September 2016 um 14:12 Uhr
> *Von:* "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
> *An:* "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi Chandra
>
> Attached is a slightly updated draft of the brief article.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:26 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Many thanks *Chip*, for your brief thesis. Please give me some time to
> assimilate your points before I response. I value your mode of thinking.
>
> *Al: *May I request you to respond to Chip’s current view as expressed
> in this latest email? You have responded to similar quires before
> posed by Albrecht, etc.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:00 AM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi Chandra
>
> It has taken me a few days to put together a very rough and
> abbreviated answer to your email below.
>
> This is in no way a complete treatment of the subject from my
> perspective, but rather kind of an overview.
>
> I know that you are not of the same opinion, but neither was I when I
> started this research. I was of the opinion that light and low energy
> EM radiation was not quantized. It just did not fit my perception of
> what was going on. However, after taking a much closer look, which
> took a few years of study, my opinion changed.
>
> So what follows is an early draft of a summary on the quantization of
> EM radiation, written from my perspective…
>
> We are able to measure a wide range of properties and parameters which
> we attribute to light. Historically this information has led to
> confusion about exactly what light is. We measure a wave-like behavior
> in many experiments, and we use waves of electromagnetic radiation for
> literally thousands of different purposes. However we can also see
> particle-like behavior in certain circumstances.
>
> Among the properties we detect when studying light is the appearance
> of spin angular momentum. This angular momentum (spin) of light is
> measured to be the value ħ under many circumstances, if we assume that
> light is comprised of photons which obey Planck’s rule E=hv. This
> spin angular momentum cannot logically be attributed to the spin
> angular momentum of the fermions (1/2 ħ) with which light reacts.
>
> Some who have studied light in depth for years insist light or
> electromagnetic radiation is just a wave. However other scientists,
> who have also studied light carefully, insist light’s behavior demands
> light come in discrete quanta, which we call photons. Strong arguments
> persist for both perspectives. Many physicists simply attribute the
> mysteries of light to another mystery called “wave/particle duality”.
>
> Herein we will address the properties of light and provide an
> explanation for those properties, as well as propose a simple model
> which unifies the seemingly contradictory wave-like and particle-like
> reaction data we have on the behavior of light.
>
> *Properties of Light*
>
> Maxwell’s equations disclose a host of properties and behavior for
> light. And they do such a good approximation that they have served us
> well since 1865 when Maxwell published. Huygens-Fresnel’s diffraction
> integral also shows us properties and behavior of light when
> diffracted. The Huygens-Fresnel’s diffraction integral serves optical
> engineers well because it quite accurately predicts the behavior of
> light. These two bits of information are compelling enough to convince
> some that light and electromagnetic radiation are only comprised of waves.
>
> However, the photo electric effect, and Compton scattering provide
> some additional information which we cannot ignore in our quest to
> fully understand the nature of light. Regarding Compton scattering, we
> quote from Wikipedia, “The effect is important because it demonstrates
> that light cannot be explained purely as a wave
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave> phenomenon. Thomson scattering
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering>, the classical
> theory of an electromagnetic wave
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave> scattered by
> charged particles, cannot explain low intensity shifts in wavelength
> (classically, light of sufficient intensity for the electric field to
> accelerate a charged particle to a relativistic speed will cause
> radiation-pressure recoil and an associated Doppler shift of the
> scattered light,… but the effect would become arbitrarily small at
> sufficiently low light intensities regardless of wavelength). Light
> must behave as if it consists of particles, if we are to explain
> low-intensity Compton scattering. Compton's experiment convinced
> physicists that light can behave as a stream of particle-like objects
> (quanta), whose energy is proportional to the light wave's frequency.”
>
> So with this seemingly contradictory information it is quite easy to
> see how there are differing opinions regarding the nature of light.
>
> In order to sort out this dilemma, let us consider a more total
> picture of what we know of light and of particles. One phenomenon
> which also initially seems to add some confusion to the scenario, but
> eventually helps us better understand, is the wave-like behavior of
> electrons in electron double-slit experiments. Here we have objects
> which are clearly particles, acting like waves.
>
> For many years, I must admit, I held the opinion, and actively
> defended the position, that electromagnetic radiation was not
> quantized, but was just a wave in space. However, eventually, and with
> much study and effort, I now feel the overwhelming evidence in nature
> demands a bit of a different perspective.
>
> If we use the information above, and imagine that space has a set of
> rules, a controlling set of properties, which govern the behavior of
> energy as it propagates through space, and we imagine that these rules
> are definable and universal, then we can develop a model for light
> which dispels the confusion surrounding this “wave-particle” duality.
> We can then see how it is that both particles and light are made of
> waves.
>
> *Properties of Space*
>
> Maxwell’s equations disclose to us some of the properties of space and
> the way space reacts to energy (in the form of waves) propagating
> through space. These equations are an accurate macro view of a
> substantial portion of the important properties of space with regards
> to the behavior of light. But they simply do not tell the whole
> story. Maxwell’s equations do not explain the spin angular momentum
> of light and fermions, and do not explain why electrons can behave as
> waves. To get the rest of the information we need to look at the
> behavior of the micro world of particles. In this micro, subatomic
> particle domain, E=hv, Planck’s rule is paramount for our
> understanding of more of this puzzle. To understand light we have to
> discuss the properties of space, in some detail, simply because light
> waves propagate through space, and the properties of space determine
> exactly how these waves can move. In this context we will then
> postulate that elementary fermionic particles are comprised of
> confined waves of energy, propagating in confinement within the
> particle, at the same velocity that the waves in light propagate.
>
> There are at least two interpretations for the application of Planck’s
> rule. In one case we can assume that Planck’s rule, E=hv, only applies
> to fermions, and that light waves are not inherently quantized by this
> rule, but just appear quantized to us, because all of the fermionic
> emitters and absorbers are quantized by this rule. Another case for
> the interpretation of the application of Planck’s rule is to assume
> that the properties of space are universal, and therefore the same for
> all energy waves propagating through space, so that E=hv would apply
> to all waves. Quantization would then be an inherent behavior of
> energy propagating in space. This author believes the second
> interpretation listed above to be the more appropriate representation
> of what we observe in nature. There are compelling reasons for taking
> such a position regarding the nature of space, light, and matter. If
> we follow this postulate we are able to answer many otherwise
> unanswered questions, and sort out solutions to puzzles we would
> simply not be able to solve using the first interpretation listed above.
>
> *Planck’s Rule*
>
> Let us follow a line of reasoning which indicates that Planck’s rule
> applies to all energy propagating through space. Then if matter is
> comprised of confined waves of energy, as postulated above, Planck’s
> rule would apply equally to particles of matter, and to the
> quantization of light. So that /E=hv/ would be a universal rule.
> Therefore this rule would be attributable to, and caused by, the
> universal properties of space.
>
> In order for Planck’s rule to be such a universal property there must
> be a cause, a property of space, which makes this rule work. It is not
> a new perspective to postulate that there is a quantization of action
> defined by /E=hv/, Planck, Einstein, as well as many others, have
> already suggested quite profoundly that this quantization of action
> must exist. Here we are just adopting the view that such a
> quantization of action is a universal property of space. Making this
> assumption has some significant benefit in solving several of the
> puzzles of the physical universe.
>
> Now we need to better define the term “quantization of action”. Let
> us start with a couple of the properties we have discussed. The spin
> angular momentum of light, and Planck’s rule. We can see from
> Maxwell’s equations that light, on the macro scale, is comprised of
> what we detect to be waves, with properties remarkably similar to
> those of transverse waves in an elastic solid.
>
> If light is comprised of discrete quanta or “photons” then the
> transverse spin angular momentum of each photon is measured as being
> the value ħ (/the reduced Planck’s constant/ ). Then if we treat the
> photon as a rotational transverse wave, which makes one rotation on
> one wavelength, we have a starting model to examine.
>
> The measured longitudinal momentum of one of these photons is. Where
> /p/ represents longitudinal momentum, /E/ represents the energy of the
> photon, and /c/ of course represents the forward propagation speed of
> light. In order for us to measure a spin angular momentum of ħ for
> these photons we have to assign an “action radius” /r /to this
> rotational wave with the dimensional value of the measured wavelength
> divided by 2π. This yields.
>
> Now we have a simple model of a single wavelength “photon” with energy
> E, momentum p, and (left or right) spin angular momentum ħ.
>
> This model displays several important properties for such a photon but
> does not yet explain a cause for the quantization of action.
>
> If this wave is confined, in a helical rotational form, which displays
> a longitudinal momentum of p, then there must be a force of
> confinement which acts against that momentum causing the spin of this
> wave. From the information listed above can calculate what amount of
> force would need to be present for this confinement. The transverse
> force F_c required for such confinement of this wave, with its
> momentum, would be calculated using a basic centripetal force calculation.
>
> Since centripetal force is momentum /p/ multiplied by velocity (/v/ or
> in this case /c/), over the radius, we can state that:
>
> We have now calculated a force which could confine the wave of a
> photon in the manner we have described. If our assumptions to this
> point are correct then this force would be the explicit cause for
> Planck’s rule. Now we will explore a bit to see if this force has any
> basis in our existing body of physics knowledge.
>
> First let us inspect the relative strength of this force compared to
> other known forces. Probably the easiest force to use is the force of
> electric charge.
>
> In order to compare the strength of this force /F_c / to the force
> /F_e / of two electric charges separated by the distance /r/, we can
> use the following steps:
>
> Then for the relationship between /F_e / and /F_c / we find:
>
> Where α represents the fine structure constant.
>
> Since the nuclear strong force is 1/α stronger than the force of
> electric charge/F_e /, we can see that this force of confinement /F_c
> / for the photon would have to be exactly the same strength as the
> strong nuclear force in order to confine the photon wave in the manner
> we have described.
>
> *Cause of the Confinement Force*
>
> We are able to calculate this confinement force /F_c /from first
> principles as well. Let us illustrate how this can be done:
>
> Which simplifies to:
>
> As it turns out the more accurate simplified form of this equation is:
>
> Where S represents the spin number of the particle (1 or ½).
>
> *Indications of the Confinement Force F_c *
>
> 1.If photons exist as discrete light quanta then some form of
> confinement is required to cause them to be quantized.
>
> 2.The relationship E=mc^2 is clearly understandable if matter is made
> of confined waves of energy. If fermions are comprised of propagating
> energy as light is, then they are confined waves of energy, so a
> confinement force is required to create fermions in this scenario. As
> confined waves of energy they would require a confinement force.
>
> 3.Following the discussion above, the confinement force required for
> photons and fermions is precisely the same magnitude as the strong
> nuclear force. So we are not proposing that there is a new force,
> only that the force we had identified as the “strong nuclear force”
> has a much broader manifestation then we had previously imagined. It
> is probably more accurate therefore to call this force the
> “confinement force” instead of the “strong nuclear force”.
>
> Regrettably, in a short article, there is no space to cover all of the
> many way that this force helps to solve many of the puzzles and
> mysteries of physics. So we will leave that discussion for later review.
>
> *Photon Behavior*
>
> A photon model, such as the one described, inherently has a set of
> attributes due to its structure and the nature of these waves in space.
>
> Diffraction behavior is well worth discussion. A Photon with lower
> energy (longer wavelength). This lower energy photon also has a larger
> radius. With a longer structure (wavelength), and a larger transverse
> extent the lower energy photon is diffracted less than a more
> energetic version. Due to this, the photon would follow a path much
> like the path a simple wave would follow. But there are a few slight
> differences which are detectible in experiment.
>
> One reason that the low energy photon is diffracted less, is that the
> confinement force F_c is so much less in a lower energy photon. This
> low energy photon structure is therefore a less rigid form than a
> higher energy photon. The wavelength of the photon, and its radius,
> are so much longer than the wavelength or radius of the particles, or
> atoms, or even molecules it encounters. Causing the incident objects
> to have less influence on the photon’s overall trajectory. The
> smaller (more energetic) a photon is, the “stiffer” it is, and the
> more easily these objects (due to their size) can have a large
> influence on its trajectory. We can see the results of this phenomenon
> with a simple optical prism. This mode of reaction is due to the size
> and stiffness of the photon and the particles with which it interacts.
> However, when the rigidity of the photon is equal to or greater than
> the rigidity of an electron, we will see an entirely different
> behavior. Reflection of the photon will become the prevailing reaction
> and we will see very little diffraction.
>
> 1.If a single wave of monochromatic light has spin angular momentum
> then there must be a force which causes the spin.
>
> 2.If there is spin in a single wave of monochromatic light then there
> is a transverse helical confinement of the wave which results from
> that spin.
>
> 3./If we follow this line of reasoning suggesting the force F_c
> exists, we can see how it is that fermions can be formed from these
> waves of energy which propagate through space. We then have a cause
> for Planck’s constant, and a way to tie many of the physical constants
> together and show cause for the fine structure constant as
> well./*(This part of these findings is to me the most convincing, but
> there is not room to cover all of this here.)*
>
> 4.If Planck’s rule is a universal property of space which regulates
> the behavior of energy propagation through space (wave action), then
> it is reasonable to assume that this quantization of action is caused
> by a force F_c which is ever-present when these waves of energy
> propagate through space.
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> Given the overwhelming evidence from experiment, and the results of
> implementing the force F_c in our formulae and definitions, it is
> reasonable to conclude that photons exist, and that light and
> electromagnetic radiation is in the form of photons.
>
> So this premise suggests that light is in the form of quantized
> rotational waves of energy.
>
> For light and lower energy EM radiation, these quanta have such a
> small amount of energy that they must come in very large numbers for
> us to normally be able to detect them. It simply takes a lot of them
> at very low energies to have enough energy to move an electron. So in
> our day to day observations, this low energy radiation will just look
> like waves of energy. It is only when we take great care that we can
> see the results of this quantization in the visible spectrum and
> below. But the evidence is there.
>
> Chip Akins
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:57 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> */Hello Everybody!/*
>
> Please, look through the email. I am trying to respond to many of your
> comments through this same email; although, a big chunk is relevant to
> Grahame’s comments addressing me earlier.
>
> I think our debate & discourse is going well; in spite of many
> disagreements; which are natural.
>
> *//*
>
> */Methodology of thinking/*/:/It is, of course, humanely comforting to
> know that somebody else’s attempt in mapping the cosmic system, which
> is only partially fathomable, is agreeable to that of mine. So, I
> appreciate Grahame’s comment. This is because all of our conceptual
> and mathematical models are limited by our neural network that
> originated for successful biological survival. We are finally
> recognizing this limit and trying to consciously redirect our cerebral
> evolution. In that process, it is smart to recognize that we are all
> “blind”, trying to model the cosmic elephant. To appreciate this, all
> we need to acknowledge that no sensors, bodily or technology driven,
> can give us complete information about any interactants under study.
> Of course, we know that. That is why we have been trying to convince
> each other of our different interpretations of the same set of
> experiment data that have been already done by others; or, we have
> done ourselves. Data from experiments never have 100% fidelity;
> neither do the instruments can talk objectively as to what they have
> experienced. We insert our diverse interpretations. That is why this
> continuous debate forum so healthy for all of us to stay humble. [I
> know I am repeating myself!]
>
> */Action at a distance:/*Newton was the first one to recognize the
> “incompleteness” behind his model of Gravity, the inverse square law.
> The action at a distance is the reality. But this perceived
> “incompleteness” can be removed, while preserving the causality, once
> we map all the forces as structurally “existing” “force fields”
> (potential gradients) generated around the “particles” at the moment
> of their formation as localized oscillations of the CTF. My thinking
> is that the time varying potential gradients in space domain can be
> perceptible (experimentally verifiable) only during the very brief
> moment of particle formation (or their assembly for gravity) or during
> sudden destruction. Or, some distortion in the potential gradient when
> the “body” is moving at very high speed. [Yes, I do not want to have
> an SR interpretation here.]
>
> */Why particles are not built out of photons/*/?:/To me, the only
> reality of the cosmic system is a quiescent Complex Tension Field
> (CTF), except some 4 to 5 % of the energy in the state of various
> kinds of oscillations.. Everything observable is a form of excitation
> of this stationary CTF. Perpetually propagating, and diffractively
> spreading, photon wave packets and localized particles are different
> kinds of */excited states of the same mother-field/*, the CTF. The
> inter-convertibility of these two energetic excitations (light-matter
> interaction) always happens via the parent CTF’s excitation energy
> taking different forms – whether emission of a photo electron out of a
> solid state photo detector, or conversion of a gamma-packet into
> electron positron pair (after interaction with some heavy nucleus).
> Neither propagating EM weaves, nor localized “particle” oscillations
> are built out of each other. They are two different kinds of excited
> states of the same CTF. We do not need any wave-particle duality.
>
> There may be transient quanta of photons at the very moment of quantum
> transition; but they must very quickly evolve as diffractively
> propagating EM waves. Photons could not exist as a localized quanta
> beyond the brief moment of its birth. Two arguments. (i) None of our
> great QED fathers, or their followers, have succeeded in cogently
> localizing photons; as they have been defined as the Fourier mode of
> the vacuum (to possess single monochromatic frequency demanded by
> quantum transitions). The second quantization really mathematical
> re-package of quantum transition of material particles
> releasing/absorbing a quantum of energy. They fail to formulate how
> this released energy evolve as perpetually propagating waves in the
> CTF. QM formalism does not have that capability. That is the core
> limitation of QM formalism that we ought to recognize to advance
> forward. (ii) All professionals scientists and engineers studying
> optical phenomena who need to propagate and manipulate light beams,
> use Huygens-Fresnel Diffraction integral and/or Maxwell’s equation.
> These equations have been helping model simple manipulations of light
> by macro mirrors, our eye-lenses, glass lenses, etc., all the way to
> micro entities like */nanoparticles/*, the most thriving field of
> optics now, besides bio-photonics. However, in the nano-domain, the
> quantum properties of materials become clearly manifest and the
> nanoparticles’ energy exchange is then treated by using standard QM,
> without quantizing the interacting EM waves -- */this is
> semi-classical model/*. Propagation of EM waves, in free space and
> within material media, are always modeled by HF integral or Maxwell’s
> equations.
>
> */Hello Everybody again: /*Based on the last paragraph above, I have
> the following generic question to all of you.
>
> */ “Why do we always get perfect experimental validation by
> propagating Maxwellian wave packets, instead of Einstein’s
> ‘indivisible light quanta’?/*
>
> I have multiple reasons to frame such a question at this forum. Buried
> in there, into classical optical experiments, since ancient times to
> modern times, a lot of subtle light-matter */interaction processes/*
> waiting to be explored further to better understand the Cosmic
> Elephant. Our, QM formulators were dominantly driven by the “elegance
> and beauty” of mathematics. Unfortunately, mathematics is only a human
> invented logic-system; albeit being the most crucial logic-system to
> model scientific thinking. We are not in a position to claim that this
> mathematical logic-system is definitely identical to that of the
> creator of the cosmic system! I will promote the above question and
> solicit answers from through forums also, including (i) our coming
> biennial 2017 conference at San Diego; (ii) during my yearly workshop
> at the SPIE Photonics West Conference (Technical Event , “Nature of
> light: What are photons?”), and (iii) as an editorial comment in the
> Journal of Nano Photonics; etc.
>
> No optical engineer has ever propagated a “light quanta” in the radio
> to optical domain. But, most of them give lip-service to the word
> “photons” (light quanta), to avoid being perceived as living in the
> eighteenth century! Particle physicists do not have an equation for
> the propagation of Gamma-photon. They just have been drawing geometric
> straight lines between centers of interactions in cascading detecting
> systems. HF diffraction integral does predict diffraction spreading of
> EM waves to inversely proportional to the frequency. This brings the
> second question:
>
> What are the necessary physical properties possessed by CTF that
> allows a non-diffracting Gamma-packet, moving with velocity “c”, and
> then colliding with a heavy nucleon, generates a pair of self-looped
> oscillating particles with opposite charge properties? What properties
> of CTF endows Gamma-packet to remain non-diffracting? Can we visualize
> the physical processes? This last question is the key to doing good
> physics.
>
> *//*
>
> */Are any of you prepared to delve into these discussions?/*
>
> *//*
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:22 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Sorry, Chandra (not Roy! - it's late!)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
>
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:51 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Roy (et al)
>
> Thanks for this. I believe I'm in full agreement with all you've
> said (as long as I've understood it correctly); my only slight
> difference in view is, I believe, a matter of semantics rather
> than science.
>
> Like you, I don't accept the concept of 'force-carrying
> particles'; this concept appears to raise far more questions than
> it answers (if it answers any) - it certainly doesn't in any
> way offer significantly greater insight than the 'action at a
> distance' proposed by Newton. [Not to put too fine a point on
> it, I find it an insult to the intelligence as it appears to
> expect a whole raft of counter-intuitive notions to be taken on
> trust.] I agree 100% with your definition of rest-mass, also the
> additional 'oscillatory energy' that relates to motion, induced by
> some form of 'force gradient' that is itself an extended
> consequence (part of the structure) of 'material particles' and
> moves concomitantly with them. In this respect such 'force
> effects' are not in some way communicated at light-speed or
> faster, they are an integral part of the particle producing that
> effect: if a complete unified singular object moves as a whole, we
> don't propose that one part of the object 'communicates its
> motion' to another part (at FTL speed) so that it too moves - it
> just IS a unified moving body. No threat to causality there. The
> fact that our limited senses don't perceive the whole of that
> extended entity doesn't mean that it can't exist - its very action
> proves that it does, in accordance with our understanding of EM
> effects.
>
> My difference in view relates to your observation that particles
> "are not made of photons"; as I say, I believe this is a matter of
> semantics - essentialy how one defines a photon. We agree that
> they are formed from light-like oscillations of the universal
> field - i.e. TEM wave packets. If one defines a photon simply as
> a TEM wave packet then particles are formed from photons; if
> however we add the stipulation that a photon radiates
> rectilinearly from its dipole oscillatory source, then by
> definition that wave packet forming a particle cannot be a
> photon. The fact that elementary particles are (or at least can
> be) initially created from photons is, I believe, established by
> Landau & Lifshitz (1934) and demonstrated by the SLAC multiphoton
> Breit-Wheeler experiment of 1997.
>
> I'm interested in your observation that the 'force gradient' of a
> particle will be distorted by a state of motion; I agree that this
> must be true, since the configuration of its formative field will
> be somewhat different. As you say, it would be interesting if it
> were possible to construct an experiment to demonstrate this - I
> suspect one would first have to persuade the experimenters that SR
> is primarily a subjective effect, so that they don't apply 'SR
> logic' as an objective truth to their readings!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of the team:
>
> */Chip:/*
>
> After reading the article by Flandern, sent by Chip, I dug out
> a possible later publication by Flandern. The link is given below.
>
> ……………………………..
>
> Foundations of Physics <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701>
>
> July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7
> <http://link.springer.com/journal/10701/32/7/page/1>, pp 1031–1068
>
> “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational,
> Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” by Tom Van
> Flandern
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-1>,
> Jean-Pierre Vigier
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-2>
>
> …………………………………………..
>
> The beginning caveat – I am not a theorist and am not
> conversant with the GR math. My knowledge of GR is mostly from
> review articles without math. Now, after reading Flandern, Now
> I believe, like that for SR, GR does also have rather serious
> foundational problems. And our understanding of momentum of a
> moving object needs to explored deeper in light of the fact
> that mass in not some immutable “substance”. It is the
> perturbation energy that creates the resonant self-looped
> oscillation of the cosmic Complex Tension Field (CTF); the
> rest mass being the original oscillation-inducing energy.
> Spatial (definitely not space-time) velocity, induced by some
> “force gradient” adds further energy to a particle in the form
> of “kinetic oscillations”. We need to carefully analyze how we
> measure and interpret “momentum” since mass is not an
> immutable intrinsic property.
>
> Even with my limited experimental expertise, I have always
> intuitively believed that forces are not mediated by various
> force particles. Thus, I clearly disagree with Flandern and
> Vigier. I have said that in many of my publications, including
> my book.
>
> Based upon the various intrinsic physical tension properties
> of the CTF, the self-looped oscillations in the CTF generate
> various kinds of decaying potential gradients of the CTF
> properties around the oscillating “particle”. These gradients
> are not exactly like the physical curvature in a stretched
> membrane (prevailing GR analogy). Then the “particles” in the
> vicinity of each other will move towards or away from each
> other depending upon the sign of the potential gradients. all
> into or are repulsed by this gradient. Hence*/, these force
> gradients are mobile with the particles and would suffer
> spatial distortion at very high velocity./* Attempts to
> measure these distortion should open up new frontiers of
> physics. “The potential gradients representing “forces”, obey
> the principle of linear superposition; very much like the EM
> wave amplitudes; even though the former is “stationary” around
> the parent particle; and the latter is true propagating wave
> that follows the classic wave equation.
>
> LCH should accommodate a new group of experimentalist to
> design experiments to measure the distortions in the
> electrostatic “force gradient” generated by speeding electrons
> and protons. Speedy protons-electron collision might help
> reveal the distortion in their gravitational potential
> gradients. These potential gradient based “forces” are not
> */communicated/* by some particles. Causality is not violated.
> “c” is not exceeded by anything since even the particles are
> light-like self-looped oscillations. Note that I am using the
> phrase, light-like oscillations of the CTF; they are not
> constructed out of photons. Photon wave packets are linear
> propagating excitations of the CTF; perpetually running away
> from the original point in space where they were created by
> some dipole oscillation (from radio to nuclear).
>
> */Albrecht: /*
>
> In a separate recent email you have raised a very important
> point, which in some of my epistemology articles underscore as
> the necessity of assigning the physical parameters in any
> physics equation with the hierarchy of “primary”, “secondary”,
> “tertiary”, etc., based upon the physical roles they play in
> interactions with other entities; or their emergence out of
> the CTF. So, I like your argument related to √μ₀=1/c√(ε₀). In
> this context, we may note that Einsteinpreferred to write
> m=E/c-squared; because m is not an immutable property; it is
> an emergent property in our methods of measuring it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 385 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 658 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 639 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 653 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 515 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 573 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 465 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160912/2203f394/attachment-0012.png>
More information about the General
mailing list