[General] light and particles group

Sat Jan 21 17:38:00 PST 2017

Hello Chandra and others,

   Thank your for emphasizing the importance of our constructively critiquing each others' ideas and models, and building on each others’ ideas and proposals where possible. I think we all are looking for the most reasonable particle-with-mass models, as ultimately determined by which models best stand up to experimental verification or falsification. But the models need to be internally consistent mathematically as well. Photon-like objects may not be the ultimate constituents of particles with mass, because a photon may be composed of a more fundamental entity such as the proposed transluminal energy quantum (TEQ) or some other energy-momentum-spin-related sub-quantum entity.

   I feel like this discussion group is moving towards a resolution of a description of the dependence on gamma of the radius of the trajectory of a photon-like particle composing a relativistic electron (as opposed to the the dependence on gamma of the effective radius of the photon-like object itself, which is a separate issue). The participants in this discussion group who have electron models to which this question is relevant are John W, Grahame, Vivian, Alex, Chip and myself and perhaps John M.   Albrecht’s electron model is not composed of a circulating photon-like object and is in a class by itself (although the 2 massless particles in his electron model move at light speed in a circle of circumference Lcompton = h/mc ,  so there are similarities with his model and the other electron models. All of these electron models contain light speed circular motion for a resting electron, so this seems to be the common foundation of this approach  to describing the energy structure of fundamental particles with mass such as the electron.

   The persons who seem closest to resolving this issue as a result of recent discussions here are Vivian, Grahame, Chip and myself. Graham has proposed that for a relativistic  electron model the photon-like object’s helical trajectory is independent of gamma. Vivian has proposed that this helical trajectory’s radius decreases as 1/gamma, and in my model the trajectory’s radius decreases as 1/gamma^2. Chip has not yet clearly stated his preference for a gamma dependence in his model, though I think he is leaning towards a 1/gamma dependence, so I hope he will weigh in on thus point. Inputs from John W, Alex and John D on this point will be helpful. 

   Of course, all three of these proposals for the possible gamma dependence of the radius of the photon-like object’s helical trajectory could be wrong experimentally. But it is logically implausible that all three of them, or even two out of three of them, can be experimentally correct since they seem mutually contradictory. I have pointed out that both Vivian and Grahame leave out from their electron models consideration of the wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged photon-like object found from the relationship hf = hc/lambda = gamma mc^2,  which is produced by equating the energy E=hf=hc/lambda of the helically circulating photon-like object with the energy E=gamma mc^2 of a relativistic electron. (De Broglie used this relationship hf=gamma mc^2 in deriving the de Broglie wavelength for a relativistic electron, but he did not conceive of the electron as composed of a circulating photon-like object.) If Vivian and Grahame both accept that this photon wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) should be included in their electron models, this will require some adjustment in their models which could alter their predictions of the dependence of their trajectory radius on gamma, and could allow the 4 of us to come to a common conclusion on this significant point for modeling the electron. This would not be an insignificant result in my opinion, given the range of ideas associated other aspects of these electron models. 

   The advantage to each electron model here of including the photon-like object’s wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) is that it is very easy to derive the de Broglie wavelength from this wavelength using the fact that the forward angle theta of all three helical trajectories above is given by cos(theta) = v/c . The helically circulating photon-like object's wave vector K is given by  K = 2pi/lambda = 2pi/(h/gamma mc)  =   (gamma mc)/hbar . The longitudinal component of K along the helical axis (corresponding to the modeled electron’s velocity direction) is given by k = K cos (theta) = (gamma mc)/hbar  x v/c = gamma mv/hbar .  This k corresponds to the wavelength Lambda = 2pi/k = 2pi/(gamma mv/hbar) = 2pi x hbar/(gamma mv) = h/(gamma mv) = Ldebroglie which is the relativistic de Broglie wavelength.

     Richard  

> On Jan 21, 2017, at 1:14 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
> 
> Chandra,
>  
> I have one quick question for you and the group to consider.  You mention that Maxwell connected the speed of light to the properties of space (epsilon and mu). To explain my question, I first have to give some background which is accomplished by quoting a short section of the previously attached paper. 
>  
> “Gravitational waves (GWs) propagate in the medium of spacetime. They are transverse quadrupole waves which slightly distort the “fabric of space”.  For example, a GW propagating in the “Z” direction would cause a sphere made from baryonic matter such as metal to become an oscillating ellipsoid.  When the sphere expands in the X direction it contracts in the Y direction and vice versa. The GW produces: 1) no change in the total volume of the oscillating sphere 2) no change in the rate of time, 3) no displacement of the center of mass of the oscillating sphere. 
>  
> Point #3 addresses an important point. If there are two isolated masses such as two LIGO interferometer mirrors suspended by wires [17], the passage of a GW does not move the mirror’s center of mass.  Instead of the mirrors physically moving, the GW changes the properties of spacetime producing a redshift and a blue shift on LIGO’s laser beams.  This difference in wavelength is detected by the interferometer as a fringe shift…”
>  
> With this introduction, the questions are:
> Should a GW effect the permeability and permittivity of free space? 
> Should the two orthogonal  polarizations of a GW produce opposite effects on the permeability and permittivity of free space? 
> Since epsilon and mu determine the speed of light, should a GW produce a different effect on the two orthogonal polarizations of light? 
>  
> If the answer to question #3 is yes, then this suggests that it should be possible to detect GWs by monitoring the polarization of a laser beam.  It is vastly simpler to detect a slight difference in the polarization of a single beam of light than it is to detect the same optical shift between two arms of an interferometer.  The interferometer encounters vibration noise to a much greater degree than is encountered in the polarization of a single laser beam.  Also, multiple laser beams could identify the direction of the GW much better than an interferometer.
>  
> Perhaps this is off the subject of the discussion group. But it is an example of a subject which might be low hanging fruit that could make a historic contribution to physics.  In the past I have made the suggestion that GWs produce a polarization effect, but this suggestion is lacking additional insight and analysis to be taken seriously.  Is there anyone in this group with the expertise to contribute to this study?  
>  
> John M.  
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:56 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>  
> “Gravitational waves indicate vacuum energy exists”, paper by John Macken
>  <> 
> John M.: Thanks for attaching your paper. The title clearly indicates that we really are in basic agreement. The cosmic space has physical properties. I have expressed my views a bit differently, that the cosmic space is a stationary Complex Tension Filed (CTF), holding 100% of the cosmic energy in the attached papers and in my book, “Causal Physics”. If the so-called vacuous cosmic space and the CTF were not inseparable, the velocity of light would have been different through different regions of the cosmic space!
>      I just do not like to continue to use the word “vacuum” because, in the English language, it has acquired a very different meaning (“nothing”) for absolute majority of people over many centuries. It is better not to confuse common people by asserting new meanings on very old and very well established words. 
>      Further, in your support, the quantitative values of at least two physical properties, Epsilon & Mu, of the comic space have already presented as quantified properties by Maxwell around 1867 through his wave equation. Recall (c-squared)=(1/Epsilon.Mu). These properties of the cosmic space were already quantified before Maxwell by the early developers of electrostatics and magneto statics.
>      I assume that you are suggesting us that we need to postulate and quantify other physical properties possessed by this cosmic space (Maxwellian or Faraday Tension Field?), so that the “emergent dynamic particles” out of this cosmic space would display all the properties we have already been measuring for well over a century.
>       However, 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. Humans have smartly derived the concept of “running time” using various kinds of harmonic oscillators and/or periodic motions. We can alter the frequency of a physical oscillator by changing its physical environment. Of course, this is my personal perception, not supported by the entire group. But, that is precisely the purpose of this free and honest discussions so we can learn from each other. As my understanding evolves; I might change back my mind and accept space as four- or even thirteen-dimensional.
>  
> Chandra.
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Macken
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 1:37 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'; 'Andrew Worsley'
> Cc: 'M.A.'
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>  
> Dear Chandra and All,
>  
> You have said “We definitely have advanced our collective understanding that space is not empty and the particles are some form of emergent properties of this same universal cosmic field.”  The idea that space is not an empty void has not been quantified in any model of spacetime proposed by members of  the group. 
>  
> I have concentrated in defining and quantifying the properties of the vacuum and the results are presented in the attached paper.  This paper analyzes the properties of spacetime encountered by gravitational waves.  The conclusion is that spacetime is a sea of Planck length vacuum fluctuations that oscillate at Planck frequency. This model can be quantified, analyzed and tested.  It is shown that this model gives the correct energy for virtual particle formation.  It also gives the correct energy density for black holes, the correct zero point energy density of the universe (about 10113 J/m3) and generates the Friedmann equation for the critical density of the universe (about 10-26 kg/m3 =  10-9 J/m3). 
>  
> The reason for mentioning this to a group interested in the structure of electrons,  photons and electric fields is that the quantifiable properties of spacetime must be incorporated into any particle or field  model. 
>  
> John  M.
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 8:45 AM
> To: Andrew Worsley <worsley333 at gmail.com <mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com>>; Light & particles. Web discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Cc: M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu <mailto:ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>  
> Dear Andrew Worsely: 
>     This is a platform for ethical, serious and honest discussions on scientific issues that the prevailing mainstream platforms have been shunning. We definitely do not want to sow unsubstantiated distrust within this group. This not a political forum where sophisticated deceptions are highly prized; which has been intellectualized as “post-truth”! This is not a “post-truth” forum.
>      So, please, help us by getting help from computer professionals before repeating any further unsubstantiated accusations.
>      If you can definitively identify anybody within our group carrying out unethical and destructive activities; obviously, we would bar such persons from this group discussion.
> Chandra.
>  
> Dear All Participants:    
> Please be vigilant in maintaining the essential ethics behind this discussion forum – honestly accept or reject others’ opinions; preferably, build upon them. This is the main objective of this forum as this would advance real progress in physics out of the currently stagnant culture. While we have not come to realize any broadly-acceptable major break-through out of this forum; we definitely have advanced our collective understanding that space is not empty and the particles are some form of emergent properties of this same universal cosmic field. This, in itself, is significant; because the approach of this group to particle physics is significantly different from the mainstream. I definitely see a better future for physics out of this thinking: Space is a real physical field and observables are manifestation (different forms of excited states) of this field.
>       Most of you are aware that our SPIE conference series, which was continuing since 2005, has been abruptly shut down without serious valid justifications (complains from “knowledgeable people” that “bad apples” have joined in). We certainly do not want something similar happen to this web discussion forum due to internal dissentions and internal unethical behavior.
>  
> Many thanks for your vigilance and support.
> Respectfully,
> Chandra. 
>  
> From: Andrew Worsley [mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com <mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:49 AM
> To: John Duffield
> Cc: Roychoudhuri, Chandra; ANDREW WORSLEY
> Subject: Re: Andrew Worsley, light and particles group
>  
> Hi John,
>  
> Could be a coincidence, but some damn troll from the discussion group (called Vladimir) has screwed up my email which I have had problem free for the last 20 years- and my computer is now going suspiciously slow.
>  
>  
> Andrew
>  
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:44 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
> Chandra: 
>  
> Please can you add Andrew Worsley to the nature of light and particles group. I’ve met him personally, and think he has a valuable contribution to make. 
>  
> Apologies if you’ve already done this, but Andrew tells me he’s received a blocked by moderator message. 
>  
> Regards
> John Duffield
> 7 Gleneagles Avenue
> Poole
> BH14 9LJ
> UK
>  
>  
> From: John Duffield [mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>] 
> Sent: 09 January 2017 08:34
> To: 'Roychoudhuri, Chandra' <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>>
> Cc: 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk <mailto:member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>>; 'John Williamson' <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>; 'Martin Van Der Mark' <martinvandermark1 at gmail.com <mailto:martinvandermark1 at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Andrew Worsley, light and particles group
>  
> Chandra: 
>  
> Please can you add Andrew Worsley (worsley333 at gmail.com <mailto:worsley333 at gmail.com>) to the nature of light and particles group. I’ve met him personally, and think he has a valuable contribution to make. He has described the electron as being what you might call a quantum harmonic structure.  The electron in an orbital is described by spherical harmonics, the electron itself might be described by spherical (or toroidal) harmonics. 
>  
> Regards
> JohnD
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20170121/4df872bb/attachment.htm>