[General] light and particles group
Albrecht
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Jan 22 18:02:05 PST 2017
Dear John Macken,
you have touched a question here which was discussed earlier but still
causes confusion; so I want to address it again as it has a fundamental
aspect. You cite: "Maxwell connected the speed of light to the
properties of space (epsilon and mu)". It is the understanding that
the speed of light is determined by the equation
c = sqrt(1/(mu_0 *epsilon_0 ))
This was the understanding of Maxwell based on his assumption that
electrical and magnetic phenomena are symmetric to each other. This
understanding was replaced by Special Relativity; when SRT was
introduced it became obvious that magnetism is a relativistic side
effect of the electrical phenomena. So, it should be better written as
mu_0 = 1/(c^2 *epsilon_0 )
because magnetism is a consequence of the limitation of c, not the other
way around. The limitation of c is not given by magnetism but has
another cause.
This is the present state of main stream physics. I refer to the
following textbooks and sources:
1) A.P. French: "Special Relativity" which has an introduction to magnetism.
2) W.G.V. Rosser "Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity" which has a
thorough derivation of magnetism
3.) Veritasium http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM which is a nice
introduction to magnetism via relativity by use of Youtube
And to say it clearly again: This is not my personal opinion or my
personal model: It is the position of main stream physics, but often
overlooked.
One point which makes the error of the original concept of Maxwell
obvious it the fact that we have electric sources (i.e. electrical
monopoles) but no magnetic monopoles.
Albrecht
*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 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170123/77411e72/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list