[General] light and particles group

Fri Feb 3 16:56:57 PST 2017

John M.: My responses are in red within your email below.
I hope my responses will help you appreciate my limited thinking, but logically self-consistent. We also know that one logic set can be replaced by another self-consistent logic set. That is how scientific theories have been evolving, any way!
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 3:58 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Chandra,

I am glad to see you designating the energy density of your CTF. You say, "Some ~94% of the energy of the universe is always held ("kept") as tension energy in the Complex Tension Field (CTF)...The observable energy ~6% (?, as far as I recall), consisting of both EM waves and particles, are different forms of excitations of this CTF."  It appears as if you are equating the energy currently assigned to dark matter and dark energy to instead be the energy of the CTF. Is this a correct interpretation of your statement? [Yes; I am doing away with the Dark Energy and Dark Matter! But, please, note that the EM waves and the "particles" are also excited states of the same CTF. The consequent energy is still a part of the CTF, albeit as its excited states. Their energies do not reside outside of the CTF. So, 100% of the energy of the universe is still contained in the CTF. There is nothing outside the CTF. This implies an infinite universe. But, I do not have any response to that.]

The "critical" density of the universe obtained from the Friedmann equation of general relativity amounts to about 10-9 J/m3 when converted to energy density.  Since we are using round numbers, it would appear that you are claiming that the CTF has energy density of about 10-9 J/m3.  Is this correct?  I read some of your publications including Resonant energy absorption and the CTF hypothesis and I have not found any model of the CTF that can be quantified into a specific energy density. [That is correct. I have not had time to develop a concrete mathematical model for the excited states that make the EM waves as propagating oscillations and the "particles" as self-looped localized oscillations. But, particles are not made out of "photons" for me. They are just different kinds of excitations of the same CTF.]

On 1/21/17 you wrote, "I disagree, as of now, that cosmic space is "space-time" four dimensional. Because, the "running time" is not a measurable physical parameter of any physical entity that we know of in this universe. So, I assert that the "running time" cannot be altered by any physical process."  I do not understand this statement since it is possible for the physical component of spacetime to have a fundamental frequency (Planck frequency for example) without implying "running time". [ I am of the opinion that Physics theories should pay close attention to those EXISTENTIAL parameters that determine their key existence and hence also are measurable by humans with clever instrumentations. We do need secondary, tertiary, etc., parameters to "close the loop" to accommodate the foundational postulates while constructing a theory. However, we need to remain vigilant before we assign physicality to a theoretical parameter, or as nature's existential parameter, when they are not physically measurable. In fact, in my book, I have underscored that "frequency" can be assigned as the "existential" parameters of both the EM waves and the "particles". My book, "Causal Physics" is now available as a cheap paperback. See Ch.10-12.]

I believe that we agree on several key points, but before I discuss this further I want to be sure that I understand the properties of the CTF.  Therefore, please answer or reference publications which answer the following questions:

1)    Do you have a quantifiable model of the CTF with a quantifiable energy density? [Not yet.]

2)    Does the CTF have a quantifiable resonance frequency? [It can allow (sustain) entire range of frequencies as its excitations to accommodate both EM waves and particles. Otherwise, it remains as a passive and INERTIAL tension field, mother nurturer of everything! I do not have a model for how this tension field is generated. Then, the ad infinitum question would be what generated that; that; etc., etc. My mind becomes inactive with this infinite chain of questions!]

3)    Are photons waves which propagate in the CTF? If so, can the energy density of photons exceed the energy density of the CTF? [Yes, the "Photons" are diffractively spreading wave packets, which are the EXCITED states of the stationary tension field, the CTF. So, no oscillation can exceed that of the mother tension field's energy density. The propensity of perpetual velocity of a wave, as an excited state of a tension field, critically depends upon the wave-generating perturbation force remaining within the restoration capacity (Hook's Law) of the parent tension filed. This is same for water wave as excitation of surface tension filed, sound as excitation of pressure tension filed. Piano music as excitation of mechanical string tension field, etc. ]

John M.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:11 AM
To: ANDREW WORSLEY <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk<mailto:member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Andrew: Basically, I agree with you.

However, my numbers are a bit different. My postulate is a bit different. Some ~94% of the energy of the universe is always held ("kept") as tension energy in the Complex Tension Field (CTF); which helps sustain observable universe. This observable energy ~6% (?, as far as I recall), consisting of both EM waves and particles, are different forms of excitations of this CTF.

Chandra.

====================================

-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:14 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Hi Chip,

Here's the thing space has energy and turn momentum and if you like effective mass

In actual fact 70% of the energy of the Universe is in "empty" space, otherwise know as dark energy..

Andrew

========================================

Message Received: Jan 24 2017, 10:42 PM

From: "Chip Akins"

To: phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>, "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"

Cc:

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Hi Albrecht

Thank you for the pilot wave reference. But of course if a particle is a wave then it would not need the same sort of treatment.

I thought you might like that approach due to your model.

But the personal struggle I have with your model is simply that it does not tell us what particles are, and my quest is to understand specifically that.

Warm Regards

Chip

From: General

[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.

org] On Behalf Of Albrecht

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:34 PM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Hi Chip, hi all,

regarding the ongoing confusion about the "wave structure" of particles I would like to remind you all of the approach of Louis de Broglie to this problem. In his view a particle is a bullet surrounded by a "pilot wave"

which accompanies this bullet and guides it. - This approach was once strictly rejected by Heisenberg. But John Bell writes in his famous book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" that he has investigated the discussion about the pilot wave and that he did not find any serious physical counter-arguments to it. According to him, Heisenberg's activities against it were nothing else but bashing of de Broglie.

I like this approach of de Broglie. I like it particularly because it fits seamlessly into my model of two orbiting massless sub-particles.

Albrecht

Am 24.01.2017 um 12:35 schrieb Chip Akins:

Hi Chandra

Yes. Momentum is measured as you indicated.

But if the electron is a circulating "wave structure", and has the property of inertial mass, then momentum is likely an inherent part of the "wave"

itself.

As we have discovered, the inherent momentum of the confined wave can cause the property if inertial mass, which further clearly illustrates why E=mc^2.

But since space is massless, there must be a mechanism which creates momentum for these waves, which is different from the way longitudinal momentum is carried by a wave in a material medium made of particles of mass.

This more fundamental form of momentum must be created without using mass, since no mass is present in "empty" space.

So if this is how things work then we may have the most fundamental form of energy = differential displacement of space.

And now perhaps we have the most fundamental form of momentum = delta Fc

sine(theta) t = E/c.

If this is true then delta Fc/Fc = pi, simply because that is the only form which yields the correct momentum of such a wave.

Chip

From: General

[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.

org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 1:10 PM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Chip: I like your thinking approach.

Measurable "momentum" arises through energy exchange between scattering entities; specifically, when one of the entity possess the "inertial property", we call particles. And, Newton correctly postulated that they tend to stay "inertial", "until acted upon by a force" (an entity that can "donate" energy to create kinetic motion).

Chandra.

From: General

[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan

dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:28 AM

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Hi Dr. Grahame Blackwell

What I was considering is trying to understand the mechanism for momentum in the propagation of energy in space. Whether that energy is in the form of light or confined in particles of matter. For if we can show exactly how it is that momentum is a fundamental feature of energy, as it moves in space, we then have specifically identified and understood the source for inertial mass.

This may help us refine our models. I think that it will help us understand Planck's quantization of action and its causes as well. This research has already helped me understand how light can have both spin and orbital angular momentum, and it may well lead to a better grasp of other basic principles.

Other reasons for looking into this in detail, are to better understand the correct set of wave equations, and spin. To understand the causes for what we observe.

I agree that a transfer of energy must implicitly also transfer momentum.

Momentum is a measureable result of energy.

But to me E=hf means that more energetic waves or particles are smaller. If that is correct then there is a cause. Probably the simplest explanation is that space has an inherent opposition to displacement, which creates this force Fc I have been discussing. That is nice, simply because this force is also perfectly suited to cause confinement, not only of waves in space, but also of elementary fermions.

So if we can explore this possibility further, and create wave equations for waves which would be caused by the displacement and this opposing force, complete with momentum and all the other measurables, then we may have foundations upon which we can model everything.

I do not think that wave interference is sufficient to cause confinement. I have studied waves in great detail and still find that more than self-interference is required for confinement of waves into soliton (circularly or spherically confined) solutions. So for me, it seems that this equal and opposite reaction of space to the displacement caused by energy is the only logical path to explore.

It is my hope (and intuition) that this path will lead to understanding the mass formation thresholds for electrons so that we might know why the electron's rest mass is the specific value we measure.

Chip

From: General

[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.

org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:40 PM

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

>

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Hi Chip,

I got a working copy, thanks.

I see that of course you're going into far more intricate details mathematically than I was looking at. In this case, it seems to me, the question becomes: "How is it that a photon travels through space?". As I've said, once that's tied down the fact that it carries momentum follows as a natural consequence.

(To some extent it depends on how one defines momentum.)

Thanks again,

Grahame

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

From: Chip Akins

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:54 PM

Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group

Once more.

Chip

_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de<mailto: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

_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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/20170204/2e5f3e32/attachment.htm>