[General] On 'non-local' actions and reactions

[Chip Akins]

Dear Grahame

 

I actually agree with you fully regarding the fact that a particle is not just our limited localized perception. I was just making the point that if space is completely empty between particles there would be no way for particles to have this non-local nature. The EM fields exist in space, and in my view are made of an interaction of space and the energy of the particle.

 

I am working on a description of gravity which I will run by you.  It is of course not easy to quantify certain aspects of gravity precisely, because it has such a relatively weak effect.  I think you will find this interesting at least.  Will let you know when it is ready.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:02 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] On 'non-local' actions and reactions

 

Chip,

 

Your issue about a "causal mechanism which can tell a charged particle that another charge is in its vicinity" evaporates once we fully grasp that a 'particle' is NOT the localised tiny entity of our perceptions (and hence also instrument-based info, since instruments are modeled on our perceptual awarenesses).  The fact is - MUST be, if particles are indeed electromagnetic constructs - that particles are actually unlimited in their extent (as electromagnetic field effects are also).  So there is NO need for 'messenger particles' - every particle in the universe is in reality enmeshed with every other, through their extended electromagnetic fields.  This is the message of gravity, it also fully explains the 'curvature' of space-time in accordance with Wheeler's paraphrasing of Einstein's observation on the subject (including causation).  [It also says a lot about quantum entanglement.]

 

Chip, I'm aware that you were somewhat disparaging of my math(s) in my paper on gravitation.  However, that paper goes further than any I have seen anywhere else in providing a causal explanation of 'gravitational' interaction, in all its respects - including a (admittedly very simple) mathematical rationale for that interaction.  As a lifetime mathematician, I have always taught my students that "the simplest solutions are the best - as long as they work".  This one works, without venturing into any high-flown and 100% hypothetical equations or relationships; I beg to suggest that a more complex mathematical treatise that rests on a high degree of speculation is worth little compared with a simple analysis based on known facts.  'Simple analysis' isn't in vogue these days, I'm all too aware - but for me an ounce of fact is worth a ton of speculation.  It must surely be fact that, if material particles are in fact constructs of electromagnetic energy, then the fields from those constructs must extend without limit - just as gravitation is known to.  Those fields will also give a 'texture' to the whole of space that will determine the behaviour of other such constructs - just as gravitation is known to.  [Wheeler in a nutshell.]

 

Just sayin' ....

 

[Once we get our heads around this simple stuff, we can then maybe begin to grapple with the fact - in my view - that spatial separation is actually a construct of consciousness, given to us by the evolutionary process to enable us to live our physical lives more effectively.  As my picture poetry book on Quantum Physics puts it: "So are we privileged to navigate, with instruments of time and space, the measureless tracts of eternity".]

 

Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:53 PM

Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

 

Dear Albrecht

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

A few items occur to me while reading your message.

 

Exchange particles are a difficult concept, especially if space is empty.  For if space is empty then there is no causal mechanism which can tell a charged particle that another charge is in its vicinity.  Therefore how do they know to “exchange photons” if space is completely empty?  We know that a charged particle at rest is NOT continually radiating photons. We could imagine that it is continually radiating and absorbing photons to maintain its energy level, but then we would be able to detect such radiation, and we do not detect any such radiation from a charged particle at rest.

 

Another problem with “exchange particles”, specifically photons as exchange particles for electric charge, is the phase continuity problem. The idea, as I understand it, is that the frequency and phase of the exchange photon determines whether it pushes or pulls on the affected particle. But charge is constant and very predictable at any given distance, while phase would change with distance. We simply do not see the kind of behavior in electric charge we would see if it were mediated by photons. I have tried to simulate how it is that photons could provide the force we sense as electric charge, at any distance, without anomaly, and there just does not seem to be any way that can work without invoking some magical and unseen, anti-causal, mechanism.

 

It is also quite interesting to me that you hold Lorentzian relativity to be more correct than Special relativity, but reject the foundation upon which Lorentz formulated his relativity.  His concept, as best I can determine from historical accounts, was that space was a medium, and that the Pythagorean relationships he formulated were due to the fixed speed of light and energy propagation in the medium.  I also believe that Lorentzian relativity is more accurate than Special relativity, but I believe that it is more accurate due to a clear cause and effect, which is only present if space is a medium.

 

Yes. Gravity is different than the other forces.  And it is a warping of the fabric of space as Einstein imagined with General Relativity.  The force of gravity is not generated by the gravitational “field”, for the gravitational “field” is simply a gradient in space which causes refraction of energy propagating through the gradient. The force we feel from that refraction is actually created by the momentum of the energy circulating within fermionic particles. So the force is related to the energy content (mass) of the object which is in the refracting field. In this way, the momentum of the energy circulating within the particle causes both inertial mass and gravitational mass. So there is a causal mechanism, which makes gravitational and inertial mass appear equivalent, in a specific manner.

 

Albrecht, thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent discussion.  While we do not agree on certain aspects, the exchanges are definitely quite helpful to me.  I appreciate that.

 

Chip

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170808/8c1ab1b9/attachment.htm>