[General] light and particles group
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Jan 22 11:52:22 PST 2017
Al:
I think the "where is the evidence" argument is no longer powerful
because so many things happening in physics have little or even
contradictory evidence. I'm just reading Van Flanders 1998 "the speed of
gravity" Physics Letters A250 1-11 which makes a good case for gravity
influences influences moving instantly - not at the speed of light.
However I like your idea of only interactions - in fact I'm developing a
theory along those lines by modeling nothing as an empty page and
requiring material formatting of the page as an explicit field of space
cells. This still allows fields as a shortcut for calculating
interactions from multiple distant cells, but nothing remains nothing,
if there are no cells to host interactions i.e. sources and sinks, then
there is no influence propagating. It takes some material to propagate
influences.
I would be very curious to read how your "one way out" formulates this
problem.
One of my hang ups is that any visualization of material basis for space
implies a kind of permanent structural relationship between sources and
sinks - but objects do seem to move fairly fluidly from place to place.
Do sources and sinks move in your vision, If so what do they move in?
best,
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 1/21/2017 10:20 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Challenge for proponents of fields (all kinds: E&M, Gravity, Tension,
> whatever): If the universe is finite, then the field sources on the
> outer rind will be pumping field energy into the void, the material
> universe would be cooling down, etc. So, where is the evidence for
> such? If the universe is finite but topologically closed, then it
> will have certain "Betti numbers" for various forms which will be
> closed, (see: algebraic topology texts), again there should be some
> observable consequence from the these closed forms. So (again)
> where's the evidence? Granted, current tech may not be up to the
> task; but that would imply that field theories have to be reduced in
> status to be virtually religion.
> One way out: there are no fields, but interactions between sources
> and sinks. Where one is missing, there's nothing! In particular
> nothing emminating from sources without regard for target-like sinks.
> Advantage: the math works out without internal contradictions
> (divergencies, etc.). Another advantage: from this viewpoint, there
> are no waves, and associated divergencies. They are just cocek the
> ptual Fourier components for the interactions. Useful, but strictly
> hypothetical.
> For what it's worth, Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 um 04:19 Uhr
> *Von:* "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>
> John M.
>
> I am not the right person to give you decisive answers as I have not
> followed the math relevant to the origin of Gravitational Wave (GW)
> and its spontaneous propagation.
>
> First, you can find out the current state of technology in the
> measuring precision of (i) fringe fraction, F (i.e., 180-degree/F) vs.
> (i) polarization angle fraction F (90-degree/F). As I recall, much
> better than thousandth of a fringe-shift is now measurable. I do not
> know what is the current best value of F for polarization measurement.
> You can look up Gravitational Faraday Effect also. I did “poke my
> nose” there in the past; but could not find anything measurable.
>
> Second, more fundamental physics. All material based waves and
> light waves require a continuous tension field that steadily gets
> pushed away from the original site of perturbation induced on the
> field; provided the perturbation does not exceed the restoration
> linearity condition (“Young’s Modulus”, or equivalent). For, stretched
> material string, the mechanical tension is T and the restoration force
> is the “inertial mass” “Sigma” per unit length; then string-wave
> v-squared =T/Sigma. For light, c-squared = Epsilon-inverse/Mu.
> Epsilon-inverse is the electric tension and Mu is the magnetic
> restoration force. These analogies are explained in some of my papers;
> I have sent earlier.
>
> Now my very basic question for the experts in GW: */How do you
> define the GW-tension field?/* All spontaneously propagating waves
> require a steady and continuous tension field in which a suitable
> perturbation triggers the original wave. What is the velocity of GW
> and what are the corresponding tension and restoration parameters? If
> you say, it is the same velocity as “c”, for the EM wave; then */we
> have some serious confusion to resolve/*. Are the tension and
> restoration parameters same as those for EM waves? Then, why should we
> call it GW; instead of pulsed EM waves? Or, */are the two parameters
> really physically different for GW/*(should be); but GW-velocity
> number just happens to coincide with “c”?
>
> I took Einstein’s explanation for the origin of Gravity as the
> “Curvature of Space” literally, as the Potential Gradient generated
> around any assembly of Baryonic Particles. So, a pair of rotating
> binary stars will generate a periodically oscillating potential
> gradient. Whatever the value of the effective gravity of a
> “stationary” binary star around earth is; it would be oscillating
> slightly when the “stationary” binary stars start rotating around
> themselves. But, this is not Gravity Wave to me. It is a phenomenon of
> “locally” changing value of the “curvature of space”; not a passing by
> wave. Imagine the typical “trampoline demo” for Einsteinian gravity
> with a heavy iron ball at the depressed center. If you periodically
> magnetically attract the iron ball to effectively reduce the
> trampoline curvature; we are not generating propagating GW; we are
> periodically changing the local “curvature”!
>
> These comments should give you some pragmatic “food for thought”!
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:14 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>
> 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:
>
> 1. Should a GW effect the permeability and permittivity of free space?
> 2. Should the two orthogonal polarizations of a GW produce opposite
> effects on the permeability and permittivity of free space?
> 3. 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
> <mailto: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]
> *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 10^113 J/m^3 ) and
> generates the Friedmann equation for the critical density of the
> universe (about 10^-26 kg/m^3 = 10^-9 J/m^3 ).
>
> 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]
> *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]
> *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 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 Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20170122/e560d669/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list