[General] Stiffness of space

Mon Oct 9 11:29:10 PDT 2017

Hi Andrew

One thing which we may have overlooked is the possibility that longitudinal displacement of space is faster than light, just as longitudinal displacement of any medium is faster than transverse waves.

The only direct manifestations we have of longitudinal displacement of space are electric charge and gravity.  If circulating transverse displacements create particles, then the fields are longitudinal displacements, with their geometric origin at the particle center.

So it is my opinion that longitudinal displacement is much faster than light.

I also feel that what we sense as transverse waves, are actually caused by the mechanism which creates momentum in the spinning longitudinal displacements of particles.

While I agree that the phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge cannot be turned on or off instantaneously. It must be 'moved' from place to place…

I do not feel that it is caused by standing waves or anything else which travels at c. But I do feel that the center of the phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge of any particle cannot move faster than c.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 7:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Dear Chip and all,

Could you comment on my view of superluminal velocities?

The phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge cannot be turned on or off instantaneously. It must be 'moved' from place to place. Their infinite-range consequences precede and follow along this motion. This means that any 'changes' in the source of these effects are propagated thru a region that already has 'excess' energy 'embedded' (probably as a standing wave). Therefore, the disturbance can move thru the region as a phase change that can propagate at greater than the speed of light. "New' energy transfer is still limited to c. The difference in phase vs group velocities could be the cause of 'inertia'.

Andrew M.
_ _ _ 

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Adam

Due to information from experiment, and calculations by Feynman, there is significant evidence that electric charge “propagates” much faster than light. (References available)

When we carefully study binary stars, and compute their orbital changes, it becomes clear that gravity is also a faster than light phenomenon. (Take a look at this for yourself, I think you may be surprised.)

In any medium, longitudinal displacement propagates through the medium significantly faster than transverse waves propagate.

So it is a reasonable avenue of inquiry to address the possibility, in fact probability, that longitudinal displacement propagates through space much faster than light. 

When we combine that premise with the premise that space is a two component tension medium, we can easily explain the cause of electric charge, gravity, the strong force, the quantization of charge, the mechanism which creates momentum, the mechanism which creates mass, and the list goes on. (I have written, or am writing papers on each of these subjects due to the fruitfulness of this research.)

I have not found any place in the literature which has explored this possibility (space as a two component tension medium, and longitudinal displacement faster than light).  But many important things can be resolved using such an approach.  There is then no need to resort to extra dimensions, or magical explanations, to explain what we observe. 

If this is the reality of nature, then Maxwell’s equations are a partial description of the behavior of the momentum created in this scenario, and we can recreate Maxwell’s equations by expressing part of the momentum operators generated by this approach.

BTW, this approach also explains magnetic fields, shows why more energetic particles are smaller particles, explains why light (photons) have a spin of 1 hbar and electrons have a spin of ½ hbar… etc.

So, after much work to find out if this could be the way it actually works in nature, I have found that the answers to most of the puzzles of physics emerge naturally from this scenario. Including pilot waves and the appearance of entanglement.

Therefore my current opinion is that this is much more causal than assuming that nothing travels faster than light.  In fact, since we have never found a medium in which longitudinal displacement propagation is as slow as transverse displacement propagation, it is starting to seem quite naive to me that we assumed that transverse “waves” were the only form of displacement, and naïve to assume that longitudinal displacement of space would be the same speed as transverse “waves”.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 10:51 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Hi Chip,

I did not gather that you want longitudinal waves to travel faster than light. I don't understand how that idea explains things causally. It seems to be the opposite of causality. 

I agree that Maxwell's equations are incomplete (a "torso" as Einstein called them) and need to be derived from properties of a CTF. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to discover the structure of a single electron within the CTF, and show how placing two of them side by side gives rise immediately to the electrostatic force. 

I did not see any derivations of fundamental equations in your paper. Perhaps I missed them. Did you have an equation yourself, which describes the behavior of objects in the CTF? It would be good to see how Maxwell's equations result from that. 

Adam

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Adam

Thank you.

I agree that gravity is a refraction.

Perhaps I have not written the paper in a manner which gets the ideas across well.

I have not started with anything more than a tension medium of space, Planck’s action, the force of electric charge, the mass energy equivalence, and experimental data, to derive the model of space discussed in the paper.

I did not start with GR, but GR is a result, I did not start with Schrodinger’s or Dirac’s equations, but they are results.

My view and Chandra’s of space are quite similar, but that I feel that longitudinal displacement of space is much faster than light.

I also feel that Maxwell’s equations are a good mathematical expression for the momentum which is created by the mechanisms mentioned in the paper.  But that Maxwell’s equations are not to be considered complete because they do not address spin.  But in addition to not being complete, I think Maxwell’s equations are just an expression of one of the artifacts (momentum) of the reaction of energy with space, and that the reactions are at a deeper level than these equations by themselves can disclose.

So I do not think that a stiffness of space which is derived from Maxwell’s equations alone will be accurate either.  Just as I do not think that a stiffness derived from the speed of light will be accurate.  One concept that I wanted to get across in the paper is that the speed of light and Maxwell’s equations are a study of certain observables, but that evidence seems to suggest that these observables arise from a set of circumstances which is not just a transverse wave in space.  There is more than that going on.  

If space is a tension medium and, if we accept that longitudinal displacement of space propagates much faster than light, it solves so many of the puzzles in a simple causal natural manner, that I feel we cannot ignore this possibility.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins> =gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 2:59 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Chip,

I think you would do well to follow Chandra's way of thinking here. There are a few reasons:

1) It is much simpler. 

2) The vacuum fluctuations are not without their problems. They give rise to a prediction that is the worst in all of physics: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

I was talking to Carver Mead about this issue and he pointed out that the vacuum catastrophe has come about through explanation of the Lamb shift, which is a tiny discrepancy in the energy levels of hydrogen. In his opinion, we should be humble and admit we have not figured out the Lamb shift yet, rather than accept the current explanation, which gives rise to a prediction of the cosmological constant at least 10e40 times, ie 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times larger (and possibly even another 10e60 times greater!!) than what is observed. Maybe John M has an opinion about this. 

3) In my humble opinion, you are on the right track to think about gravity as the refraction of a wave. This is how I think about it, and I believe this is clearly correct. (I could not tell if this is how you think about gravity, really, because in the paper you sent out you use different terms to explain it). Whatever theory you are looking for needs derive the Einstein equation (as well as the Maxwell equations and Schrodinger equation), not start from there. General Relativity is so profound, and wonderful, it is because of it that you and I and Chandra et al. are searching for a solution to the question in terms of an underlying ether, fabric, CTF, what have you. However, GR only describes the reaction of that fabric to mass and energy, it does not explain how mass and energy emerge. These quantities are expressed by the stress energy tensor T_{\mu\nu} in the right hand side of the Einstein equation, and Einstein called this tensor an 'asylum ignorantiae'. It seems to me that you are looking to explain the origin of energy and mass, which is what you should be doing, so your explorations should be one level deeper than GR.

Adam

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> > wrote:

Chip, Macken:

I have a different approach to the stiffness of the space. 

Just look at the Slide#12 in the attached document.

I conclude Ether as the Complex Tension Field (CTF) based on the fact that this CTF allows the perpetual velocity “c” for light WAVES through it, same everywhere. Therefore, from Maxwell’s equation “epsilon” and “mu” are the most important determinants of the space stiffness. These two constants have been measured repeatedly since the beginning of physics. I have presented this approach in my 2014 book (“Causal Physics”) and many of my earlier papers. Fortunately, math is accessible to undergraduate students (Slide #12).

Chandra. 

PS: The attached document is a cut out version of my1-hr. seminar today to our graduate students.  

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchandra.roychoudhuri> =uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 1:30 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> >

Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Hi Chip,

I do have an answer for your question about the stiffness of space.  I have been working on this for a long time and I believe that I have come up with some amazing results.  Attached is my latest version of a paper I have been writing on this subject.  Here is the abstract from this paper.

Abstract: Gravitational waves (GWs) have some characteristics of acoustic waves. For example, GWs have amplitude, frequency, intensity, propagation speed and encounter spacetime as having a quantifiable impedance.  These characteristics permit GWs to be analyzed to obtain the apparent “acoustic” properties of spacetime. The result is that GWs encounter spacetime as if it is an extremely stiff elastic medium with a large energy density. The energy density encountered by GWs scales with frequency squared and equals Planck energy density (∿10113 J/m3) at Planck frequency. This matches the vacuum energy density predicted by quantum field theory at this frequency. This finding makes a new contribution to one of the major mysteries of physics known as the cosmological constant problem. An analysis of the GW designated GW150914 is also given as a numerical example. A model of vacuum energy is proposed to be Planck length vacuum fluctuations at Planck frequency.

John M.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 8:16 AM
To: 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> >; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Hi John H

Not like inertia.

Chandra and I both feel that space is comprised of a tension medium.

But if that is the case then it seems that medium must be very “stiff”. 

So that it would take a large force to displace space a small amount.

But the stiffness would be due to the tensor strength of the medium.  

Space would then be “frictionless” for all practical purposes. But would oppose displacement with a force.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:57 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

"Stiff" like inertia?

Hodge

On Friday, October 6, 2017 7:22 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi John M

Earlier, while reading your work, I noticed you discussed the stiffness of space.

I am looking for some insight into how to quantify just how “stiff” the medium of space is.  Hoping to relate fundamental force to fundamental displacement.

Do you have any thoughts on how to address this issue?

Chip

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 afokay at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20171009/18a6a2d7/attachment-0001.html>