[General] light and particles group

[Albrecht Giese]

Wolf,

regarding the /speed of gravitational influence/:

I have looked into the mentioned paper of Van Flanders in 1998 and 
particularly his arguments why gravitational influences must propagate 
instantly, not at the speed of light. I do not follow his arguments 
because he has overlooked an important point.

His argument (also that one cited from Eddington) is: If the speed of 
gravitational propagation is limited (e.g. to c) then in the case of two 
celestial bodies each body would not see the other one at its actual  
position but at a past position. This would destroy the conservation of 
momentum. -  However, this is not the case.

One simple example to see that this argument cannot be true. We can 
imagine a set up of two /massive /bodies which orbit each other and 
which are bound to each other by an electrical force; this is easily 
possible by putting an appropriate electrical charge of different sign 
onto both bodies. Also the electrical force is, as we know, restricted 
to the speed of light. But it is very clear that this set up would keep 
the momentum of both bodies and would steadily move in a stable way.

How does this work? The phenomenon is the so called "retarded 
potential". It has the effect that, even though both charges are seen at 
a past position by the other charge, the force vector points to the 
/actual /position of the other one.

If we now assume that gravity is a force (independent of what Einstein 
talks about curvature of space), then the same rules of retarded 
potential apply to gravity. And so there is no change of momentum even 
though the effect of gravity is limited to the speed of light.

Does this provide some clarification?

Albrecht


Am 22.01.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> 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-mailwolf 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 atWolf 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170131/87b7375f/attachment.htm>