[General] light and particles group

Sun Jan 22 19:40:02 PST 2017

Dr. Baer, AlFriends.The Scalar Theory of Everything is what you are approaching. A 36 page summary of development to date :Universe according to the STOE. The math works and is self consistent.file:///C:/Users/Cam/Downloads/mse45.pdf 
"Where is the evidence?" STOE reduces to GR and QM with appropriate assumptions. Data is used to show the model working in many otherwise unexplained situations. The model has made 2 sets of predictions that have later been found. (Pioneer anomaly and light diffraction). It predicted a new experiment and results In light diffraction. 
Als one way outI also followed Van Flanders  Think of all the quantum weirdness stuff. If an aether wave traveled at van Flanders speed, the quantum weirdness is explained by matter influencing the aether and the aether influencing matter( sound like GR) - direct contact force transmittal. The aether is not matter for it has no gravitational mass. Therefore, it is not a fluid. Only the divergence influence matter. The CMB temperature (heat equation with sources and sinks) is calculated by matter moving from spiral galaxies to elliptical galaxies. The universe is finite and limited. There is a last galaxy, the flow out flows back to sinks to establish a limit.The diffraction model shows the waves (yes-full waves with up and down potentials) are needed for the model to work. Remember a wave requires some inertia to keep the energy rising after it reaches the equilibrium point. The aether has inertia - This is why I called it a plenum. SO, the equivalence principle is derived because each piece of matter captures the plenum to give it inertia. I've created some videos that present this model simply. the papers have the data and equations - (lots of reading). https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc0mfCssV32dDhDgwqLJjpw(note the one on Photon Diffraction)If you have an interest, I'd really, really like some discussion with you. There are several areas the need more work (the mysterious observations and the development for subatomic particles larger than electrons which I think I may have).Hodge

    On Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:02 PM, Albrecht <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

  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/(mu0*epsilon0))

 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 

 mu0 = 1/(c2 *epsilon0)

 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:    
   - 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] 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] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
 Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 8:45 AM
 To: Andrew Worsley <worsley333 at gmail.com>; Light & particles. Web discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
 Cc: M.A. <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> 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] 
 Sent: 09 January 2017 08:34
 To: 'Roychoudhuri, Chandra' <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
 Cc: 'ANDREW WORSLEY' <member at aworsley.fsnet.co.uk>; 'John Williamson' <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>; 'Martin Van Der Mark' <martinvandermark1 at gmail.com>
 Subject: Andrew Worsley, light and particles group     Chandra:    Please can you add Andrew Worsley (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>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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/20170123/c80f87c5/attachment.htm>