[General] HA: Gravity
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Wed May 3 05:59:52 PDT 2017
Hi Chandra
I have scanned through the paper you sent. Interesting food for thought
there. I will have to go through this is more detail.
My premise, in the working paper I sent, was that the properties of space
which cause the quantization of the electron are just that, properties of
space. And as such would have an effect on the quantization of gamma photons
as well. However, that does not mean that these properties are linear or
that they affect lower energy light in exactly the same way.
While the absorbers and emitters of light must be quantized, the only thing
which might indicate that light itself is quantized would be the properties
of space. When one assumes these properties exist for the quantization of
particles of matter, the simplest solution is then to assume that light (at
least in the gamma radiation region) must also be quantized because of these
same properties of space.
One issue to be studied in more detail, is how it is that diffraction of
light by gravity is achromatic.
It seems, the larger a transverse wave is, the more a gravity gradient would
diffract this wave.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:15 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
Hi Chip:
Your ambitious philosophical approach, "On the Foundation of Physics", is
definitely impressive. I have not spend enough time to assess whether your
approach could yield any major breakthrough in physics. I hope it does.
However, as you are aware, I am a very "classical" thinker when it comes to
photon. I am with Planck, the real father of quantized energy release.
Planck's photon always propagates as a wave packet within the Blackbody
cavity. Based on Planck's views, I have defined "Photon = h-nu" as only a
transient quantum-brick at the moment of quantum transition. Immediately
thereafter, the "photon-brick" emergences as a quasi-exponential propagating
harmonic of the CTF (Complex Tension Field). During absorption (transition)
of "h-Nu" out of the "spread out" EM waves, the atomic and molecular
quantum dipoles function as "h-nu quantum cups". We do not need any
quantization of the EM waves.
I based my model to accommodate the ancient and modern spectrometric
observations and also based upon my causal theory of spectrometers (in my
book). Old classical spectrometric theory is non-causal as it starts with
infinitely existing Fourier mode. Formalism of Quantum Mechanics never
developed proper concepts (or guidelines) as to how a spectrometer generates
certain "spectral width" as the light passes through a spectrometer. In
fact, this one of the most fundamental philosophical (methodology of
thinking) problem of quantum mechanics.
Sincerely,
Chandra.
PS: Apparently, at his thesis defense, Heisenberg was asked by Wien to
explain the root cause behind the "resolving power limit" of a microscope,
or a telescope, or a spectroscope. Young Heisenberg was totally silent! He
still passed the exam to write his famous paper rationalizing
"Indeterminacy" as a nature's inherent property, rather than as a pure
functional limit of human constructed instruments. Today, we optically image
molecules with resolving powers thousands of time smaller than "Lambda/2"
known by people during Heisenberg's time. I have a 1978 paper criticizing
this kind of thinking (see attached).
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:31 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
Hi All
Found an error in some of the math. Corrected version of this working draft
attached.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 5:15 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
Wolf (et al.),
My response is below your response to Albrecht's response to a small
fragment of my earlier response to your response to Al.
Regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
To: phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> ;
general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ; af.kracklauer at web.de
<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
Grahame,
you say: " ... the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the consequences of
those distributed entities ALREADY being present to some degree at every
point in the cosmos ... "
But look at the following cases: 1.) There may be two twin stars which orbit
each other. Their distance is rapidly changing during an orbit. So the
gravitational influences to their environment will change. And for this
change I see the question justified which the propagation speed of this
influence is. I think that your statement above does not cover this case,
true? 2.) An even less regular case: I know a colleague (professor) who
has built and performs an experiment to determine again the gravitational
constant. In doing this he has two massive objects which he moves towards
each other or apart from each other and measures the force between them.
This process depends on his momentary decisions, so it is completely
irregular compared to other physical processes. So, also in this case,
nothing is constant or even predetermined.
Perhaps Grahame was thinking more of a Block universe were everything is
already determined and therefore in one state determined by the initial
conditions, actually any single description in a time instance. Then we are
talking about events in dynamic states which interact with other events also
in dynamic states and the interactions change both states.
No - Grahame is simply referring to the universal principle of causality*,
coupled with the well-established fact that a massive object at one location
influences, to some degree, the behaviour of every other massive object at
every other location. This makes no suppositions as to what might be termed
a 'clockwork universe', indeed it permits (without supposition of any of
these options): a totally non-deterministic universe; underlying causation
of supposed quantum non-determinism (I personally regard such causation as
100% consistent with so-called 'wavefunction collapse'); MWI (though I
personally have a fair degree of contempt for this concept); influence at a
sub-quantum level of nonphysical universal consciousness (aka panpsychism)
on supposedly non-deterministic quantum events - a totally valid scientific
option which is dismissed by most present-day mainstream physicists on
grounds that appear ideological rather than scientifically-based (I have yet
to see any scientific evidence for this dogmatism).
I hope that clarifies my position - and I believe that you'll find this
position 100% consistent with the proposal that I have put forward regarding
gravitation.
[For completeness I'd agree that we're talking about events in dynamic
states which interact with other events also in dynamic states and the
interactions change both states; if we're not, then we're not talking about
any universe that I've ever lived in.]
[* It's possible that there is a higher principle of causality, not subject
to time constraints. This possibility is beyond the scope of this
discussion - and probably beyond the scope of human understanding at its
present state of evolution.]
Grahame
Wolf,
there was an interesting development in our understanding of the physics of
gravity. About a hundred years ago it was the general opinion that gravity
is the simplest and most fundamental force in physics. This may also have
been the reason that gravity is a fundamental parameter in the definition of
the Planck units. At present, however, the representatives of the German
Einstein Institute say that gravity is the least understood and perhaps most
complicated force.
Newtonian gravity is still pretty simple but now we have learned more
specifically that inertia is not just an intrinsic property a la N's 1st
Law, but perhaps the result of a vector potential or a side effect of other
forces like your theory.
The idea to connect gravity in some way to the electric force comes up again
and again. The reason is most probably that both follow the dependence of
range of 1/r2. (But this dependence can be explained geometrically if we
assume that forces are generally mediated by exchange particles.) The idea
of Jefimenko that there is a cogravitation as a kind of different charge
sign to make it compatible with electricity is a new and severe assumption.
I find it better not to permanently introduce new - an unobserved -
phenomena than to try to live with the existing ones (= Occam's razor).
I agree and Jefimenko goes beyond adding a cross product force to Newton he
also adds a gravitational force to the field since it contains energy and
ends up with 5 forces. However Sciamma's vector potential explaining inertia
is Jefimenko's main point.
Einstein has described gravity as a geometrical phenomenon, changing the
understanding of space and time. On the other hand Theodor Kaluza has
irritated Einstein with his hint that any force in physics can be explained
by a specific geometry of space and time. (Einstein has accepted that but
was not happy with it.) So, why not go back to physics and to forces in
gravity rather than using space-time.
Yes I agree. It is best to remember that all theories and models are written
drawn or imagined on a background space that is both fixed and meaningless
as anything but a structural support. I Found it impossible to to imagine
space time warping so from a heuristic necessity it is simply easier to
imagine particles and forces between them. However there is clearly a
tendency in physics to be proud of theories that no one understands.
Regarding the instantaneous propagation of gravity: To my knowledge this was
carefully investigated in past decades with the result that also gravity is
limited to c. I do not go back to the details. Should there be new arguments
which are not covered by the past discussions then this would be a good
reason to investigate this case again. But are there new arguments?
The fact that Newtonian action at a distance works and is used by
astronomers and orbital space engineers with great success yet requires the
speed of light to be infinite or at least several orders of magnitude larger
than "c" has never to my knowledge been explained. It like the twin paradox
and the inconsistency of the perihelion of Mercury precession is brought up
and then ignored and brought up again by the next generation and then
ignored.
If we want progress in the realm of gravitation, I expect an answer to at
least one question: what is the cause of the weak equivalence principle,
i.e. the fact that all objects are having the same gravitational
acceleration independent of their inertial mass. Newton's theory of gravity
does not answer this, Einstein's does not answer it as well. Gravity has to
answer it!
I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's principle not
answer this question?
Albrecht
Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
Wolf et al,
You will note that my proposal re gravity in my recently-circulated paper,
as the 'extended being' of spatially distributed entities that we (with our
limited senses) perceive as localised 'particles', implicitly proposes that
the 'propagation speed of gravity' is in fact infinite - since there is in
actuality NO propagation involved, the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the
consequences of those distributed entities ALREADY being present to some
degree at every point in the cosmos. I.e. 'everything is everywhere', to
put it in simple terms; as a 'physical massive object' moves (again, a
simplistic term), the WHOLE of its extended being moves with it and is
immediately in a position to manifest 'gravitational' effects of that object
consistent with its changed position, no matter how far spatially removed
(more simplistic concepts!) from what we perceive as the 'massive object'
itself.
This points to a far deeper truth - that 'locality' and 'time' are both
over-simplifications of deeper concepts, foisted on us by an evolutionary
process that's more interested that we (a) breed, (b) find lunch and (c)
don't become lunch - than it is in us fathoming the underlying principles of
cosmic structure.
Best,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
To: af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> ; phys at a-giese.de
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> ; general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
Al:
I'm too concerned with gravity and charge as the fundamental characteristics
of mater in classic physics to appreciate deeper explanations until the
discrepancies or simpler questions have been answered.
Is not Einstein's connection between gravity and space time based on the use
of EM wave phase measurements that define space time? In other words masses
interact with charges and EM propagation so that the definition of a meter
and a second with which we measure space and time are the cause of the
warping.
Even more important for me right now is the question of the speed of
gravity. I now had more of a chance to read Jefimenko's Gravitation and
Cogravitation which Al recommended, where he expands on the idea that the
equations correcting Newton's look more like EM with a gravitational scalar
and vector potential and a Lorenz like force replacing newtons. In his
chapter 20 he points out that the 43 seconds of arc precession of Mercury
rather than being a proof of Einstein's theory is actually a cause for
questioning the validity of Einstein's equations, Because Gerber's formula
for the 43secnds was based upon planetary calculations based upon Newton's
Action at a distance i.e. gravity goes the speed of infinity. Jefimenko
points out that if Newton's theory was wrong and gravity is not
instantaneous than if Einstein's theory explaning somthing wrong (the 43sec
precession) is wrong and Einstein's theory coming up with 43 seconds
actually proves Einstein's theory is wrong. Jefimenko calculates the value
of the precession from his theory is 14 arc sec.
If gravity propagates instantly we are talking about a completely different
beast than Einstein's theory, and trying to explain an error that is assumed
correct just leads to more errors although the errors may be self
consistent.
Wolf
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virenfrei.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com
_____
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20170503/14a4fd62/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list