[General] Stiffness of space

Wed Oct 11 10:25:12 PDT 2017

John M.

Did your landscaping act as a fire break by design or by accident?

Andrew M.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:08 AM, <john at macken.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hello John W. and All,
>
>
> I have some experimental evidence indicating that photons can interfere
> with other photons. From about 1969 to 1971 I worked of CO2 laser radar
> systems. We would routinely interfere two laser beams generated by
> different lasers and observe the beat frequency. These two beams were
> combined using a semi-transparent mirror similar to the mirror used in an
> interferometer. The beat frequency could be as large as 40 MHz or as small
> as a few tens of Hz. Since the photons in each beam were coming from
> different lasers, they must have been interference between different
> photons. I have several other examples that prove this point, but these
> additional examples probably are not necessary.
>
>
> On another subject, I live in Santa Rosa, California and my house was one
> of the thousands of houses in the path of the tremendous wild fires to
> strike Northern California. Of the 49 houses closest to me, 39 were
> destroyed and 10 survived. My house was one of the 10 that survived. It was
> surrounded by landscaping about 10 meters wide that served as a fire break.
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 9:27pm
> To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Cc: "Phil Butler" <phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>, "Niels Gresnigt" <
> Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn>, "Mark, Martin van der" <
> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I think the recent discussions could do with a dose of the other side of
> the scientific method: facing any conjectures with experiment. Also there
> are a couple of bits of theory I thought were also “common knowledge” which
> seem to be outside the recent discussion within the group and, on which, I
> would appreciate clarification by those more knowledgable in the field than
> I.
>
>
>
> Firstly, the recent experimental detection of gravitational waves has
> something to say about the conjecture that gravitation may be “faster than
> light”.  If this were so, then one would expect to see the timings in
> Ligo be more similar to each other, would one not? At “infinite” velocity
> of the disturbance the signals would appear at the same time. They do not.
> The observed results are all consistent with the gravitational wave
> disturbance travelling at lightspeed, as far as I am aware. If there were
> indeed two solar-mass objects in rotation about one another at near
> lightspeed I would expect to see longitudinal gravitation waves which Ligo
> should have been able to pick up, would I not? I must admit to being a bit
> disappointed by this, as Martin and I have long conjectured that
> disturbances in the fabric of space-time may be pretty much
> “instantaneous”. Apparently not so.
>
>
>
> Secondly on photons interfering with themselves. I am pretty sure, not
> only because of the exclusion principle but also because of having done the
> experiments myself, that electrons interfere only with themselves. I do not
> see why the same should not be true of photons.  Three things confuse,
> one experimental one “theoretical” and one just basically confusional.
>
>
>
> Experimental: it is my understanding that many experiments have been done
> in interference where there is only one “photon” in the detector at a time.
> The interference pattern builds up, photon by photon. This has now been
> done so often, and for so many years, that I thought this was beyond any
> reasonable doubt. True?
>
>
>
> Theoretical: the path integral formalism of electromagnetism requires
> photon interference with itself to derive why photons travel in “straight”
> lines at all. There is a simple exposition of this in the Feynmann lectures
> on physics. This is here a consequence of the photon interfering ONLY with
> itself, and with many different possible phases. Is this then wrong and if
> so, why? If it is wrong, and given that the Maxwell equations by themselves
> would predict sources give out pretty much spherical waves, as is the case
> for sound, what is the alternative explanation for their traveling pretty
> much exclusively in straight lines from emitter to absorber?
>
>
>
> Confusional. If a photon is somewhere emitted at lightspeed it is
> immediately and irrevocably outside the light-cone of every other photon in
> the universe. It is a “gone”.  The only other thing on its light-cone is
> its future absorber. How then, could this possibly interfere with anything
> but itself?
>
>
>
> Yours, confusedly,
>
>
>
> JGW.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [
> mules333 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 09, 2017 7:36 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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=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>
>> *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> 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=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>
>> *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> 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=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>; 'Hodge John' <
>> 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
>> <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>; 'Nature of Light and
>> Particles - General Discussion' <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
>> <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>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Stiffness of space
>>
>>
>>
>> "Stiff" like inertia?
>>
>> Hodge
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 6, 2017 7:22 AM, Chip Akins <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
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
>> natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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 afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
>> natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.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 afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
>> natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.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 mules333 at gmail.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
>> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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 mules333 at gmail.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
>> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20171011/8a1f29ea/attachment-0001.html>