[General] Interference of Photons

john at macken.com john at macken.com
Sun Oct 15 19:19:14 PDT 2017


Hi Chip, Vivian and All,
 
I have been attempting to avoid a discussion of my model.  Initially I wanted to merely obtain agreement on the properties of an electron, electric field, gravity, etc. which any model must achieve.  However, Chip brings up an interesting point when he says he favors "a model which assumes space to be a tension medium, as Chandra has suggested".
 
Chip objects to the idea of spacetime having a tremendous energy density but he favors the idea that space can be a "tension medium". I agree that space does not have a tremendous energy density if we apply the conventional definition of "energy". Perhaps I have not been clear about this. The words "tension field" are less well defined and are perhaps better to describe the properties of spacetime which have a pseudo-energy.  The word "tension" has synonyms of strain or pressure. It is also defined as the force which produces a deformation of an elastic body.  All if these also imply a type of pseudo-energy density.  For example, pressure and energy density are mathematically equivalent. However, this is all a discussion of semantics. Neither of us is implying that my "vacuum energy" or your "tension medium" has the ability to do work or generate gravity in the conventional sense. However, my "vacuum energy" has some of the properties of conventional energy but lacks the key ingredient of quantized angular momentum (1/2 h bar). My model can be expressed mathematically and can be tested for plausibility.  
 
The standard model currently has 17 named "particles". These are considered to be "excitations" of their respective fields. The implication is that there are 17 overlapping fields existing in spacetime. However, these are just words without a clear mathematical descriptions of the internal structure of these "fields".  I claim these fields have some of the properties associated with energy but they lack the  "excitation" required to make an observable object such as a photon  or electron.  This statement requires more explanation which will come at a later date.
 
I previously made the case that quantized angular momentum (spin) is the most fundamental form of quantization. Spin met my definition of "strong quantization" because spin only comes in integer units. Foe spin these units are 1/2 h bar.  Even when a photon is observed in any frame of reference, it always has the same spin. Energy, wavelength and frequency change with frame of reference but spin is a constant integer unit. We say a photon has quantized energy, but the photon's energy is a "weak definition" of quantization. I claim that the transfer of a photon's energy is a secondary byproduct to the transfer of a photon's quantized angular momentum when the photon is absorbed. 
 
Circularly polarized photons possess angular momentum, but linearly polarized photons do not seem to possess observable angular momentum.  I claim that even a linearly polarized photon has h bar of angular momentum but it is in a difficult to observe form of orbital angular momentum.  I can suggest an experiment that can detect this hidden angular momentum.  This would be an important experiment and would make a good PhD thesis if it has not already been proven. The origin of quantized angular momentum will be addressed in another post.
 
I now will briefly address Vivian's statements. She said, ""Many of this group favor the electron as a confined photon. There is a consensus that the confinement is the photon making two revolutions within its wavelength..." She goes on to discuss ideas about ways of making electrical charge involving rotation of the photon and the emission of "field photons".
 
My objection has always been that charge, field and photon are just words which are not understood on the deeper level of the underlying distortion of spacetime required to produce charge, photons or fields. 
 
Has anyone questioned the amount of pressure that would be required to confine a 511,000 eV photon in the volume assigned to the electron model? This is an easy calculation. It might sound like a rhetorical comment, but it is extremely important because once this question is answered you will get insights into both the electrostatic force and gravitational force between two electrons. If the size is 1 Compton wavelength in circumference rather than 2, the answers become particularly simple. 
 
I am saying that it takes pressure supplied by an external "field" to confine an electron's energy.  In isolation, this external force is balanced and there is no net force.  However, when another particle disturbs this balance, the pressure exerts an unequal force on the particle (quantized rotation wave) and the result is a net force.  My model obtains the exact force between two particles at any separation if they had Planck charge rather than charge e.  Planck charge is about 11.7 times larger charge than charge e and is more fundamental than charge e.  Charge e is a degraded form of Planck charge perhaps resulting from vacuum polarization shielding most of Planck charge. The difference between two particles each with Planck charge and both particles having charge e is a force reduction equal to  the fine structure constant (about 137 weaker than Planck charge). Therefore, the model generates the electrostatic force between 2 electrons if the fine structure is manually inserted.
 
However, the most astounding result of this analysis is that it predicts that since "vacuum energy" (tension field) is quantifiable and finite, this means that there should be a boundary condition which makes spacetime a nonlinear medium for waves.  This nonlinearity results in the much weaker second order effect that corresponds to the gravitational force between particles.  The first term in the nonlinear expansion is amplitude squared.  Using this you obtain the Newtonian gravitational equation and the curvature of spacetime produced by a single particle. This gives the correct gravitational force between two electrons to about 40 significant figures.  Has anyone else generated the correct gravitational force or electrostatic force (alpha adjusted) from first principles? More to follow.
 
John M.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:28am
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons




Hi John M
 
I feel that your work identifies many of the issues we need to address in order to create a more complete and more accurate model of what we observe.
 
However I do not see the need for a space which is filled with its own inherent high energy density in order to achieve that goal.
 
So to answer your last question in your email below…
“Is there a single model that explains and quantifies all these properties? “
 
The answer is YES.  Apparently more than one possible model.  But I have only seen one model which addresses and quantifies each of these issues without reverting to a space which contains huge amounts of inherent energy.  That model is a model which assumes space to be a tension medium, as Chandra has suggested, but comprised of two components. 
 
Using this model we can identify the cause for electric charge, gravity, magnetism, the photon, the electron, momentum, inertial mass, gravitational mass, quantization of electric charge, quantization of particles, the spin of particles, how light obeys the Huygens- Fresnel principle, while also explaining double slit experiments with the electron and photon, … and the list goes on.
 
Chip
 
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of john at macken.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:50 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Interference of Photons
 
 
Hello All,
 
In previous posts, I have made the case that multiple photons always add their electric fields. It they encounter matter when the electric fields are adding and subtracting in an observable way, then we say the multiple photons have interfered. Another point is that quantized angular momentum (spin) is the most fundamental form of quantization. This is the physical property which makes waves achieve particle-like properties.
 
This post continues to expand on the idea that it is possible to understand wave-particle duality when quantized spin is understood and incorporated into the model.  Here is another part of a paper that makes another important point.
 
"Photons are usually described as possessing “wave-particle duality”. However, this phrase is just a name given to something that we do not understand. The essence of a wave is that it is an oscillating disturbance with a definable wavelength and distributed over a substantial volume. A wave transfers liner momentum and some waves are capable of transferring angular momentum. Any wave disturbs the medium through which it is propagating such that energy is being converted between different forms.
 
The essence of a particle is that it is a single unit that differs from its surroundings. A fundamental particle is usually assumed to be energy concentrated at a point with no internal structure. A point particle or even a Planck length vibrating string is incapable of possessing ħ of angular momentum as a conceptually understandable physical rotation. The implied infinite energy density of a point particle also defies a physical explanation.
 
Saying a photon has “wave-particle duality” is like saying that it has “top-bottom duality”. These are contradictory properties which cannot be equal partners. A photon must either be a particle that somehow exhibits wave properties or a wave that is somehow quantized so that it exhibits particle properties. An informal survey of scientists has indicated that a photon’s contradictory properties are usually just tolerated without visualizing a specific unified model. "
 
End quote from paper
 
The group all favors a model of an electron as a confined, charged photon. I find that this lacks credibility because there is no model that explains, a photon, electrical charge and the structure of a "charged particle".  The model of an electron must also simultaneously explain an electron's energy, de Broglie wave properties, electrical field, spin, gravitational curvature,  electrostatic force and gravitational force. I know that this seems like a hopeless combination, but this is the complete problem.  Is there a  single model that explains and quantifies all these properties? More to follow.
 
John M.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [ john at macken.com ]( mailto:john at macken.com )
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:25am
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <[ general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ]( mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org )>
Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <[ general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ]( mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org )>
Subject: [General] Interference of Photons


Chandra,

You said, "Heterodyning two CO2 or He-Ne lasers with a fast detector does not validate interference between different “photons”… Detector’s interaction characteristics determines what we measure”. I disagree.  Here is my reasoning.

Any detector that responds to the energy of individual photons are “square law detectors”. When you feel the heat from a laser beam with your hand, your hand is a square law detector. The alternative is a detector that responds to EM radiation (electric field) like a radio receiver. 
In working with laser radars, I always thought that the beam splitter did not receive the credit it deserved.  When a beam splitter is used to combine two beams, the beam splitter adds electric fields. It does not merely add the power in the two beams. I want to give an example that helps to illustrate the difference. Suppose that the weak beam has 2 photons strike a beam splitter each nanosecond. This means that 1 photon per nanosecond emerges in each output beam of the beam splitter.  Presume the strong beam would have 1,000,000 photons per nanosecond emerge in each leg of the beam splitter if the weak beam is not also present. It helps to imagine a the photons in this example as being a wave with a small bandwidth (long coherence length).

When both beams are present simultaneously and with different frequencies, then the electric fields add and subtract forming beats. Since the electric field scales with the square root of power, the strong beam produces 1,000 times stronger electric field than the weak beam. However, when these two electric fields are added, constructive interference produces an electric field strength of 1,001 units and destructive interference produces an electric field of 999 units. Squaring these numbers results in about 1,002,000 photons emerging per nanosecond in constructive interference and 998,000 emerging per nanosecond when there is destructive interference.

The point is that the beam splitter adding electric fields caused the 1 photon per nanosecond to causes a redirection of about 4,000 photons per nanosecond difference between constructive and destructive interference. If a more powerful strong beam were used (stronger local oscillator beam) then this difference would be even larger. This was experimentally proven and this effect permits laser radar to work. Extremely weak beams are detectable because mixing them with a powerful local oscillator beam boosts the signal strength. If we are counting photons per second (power) this means that the beam splitter has an property of an amplifier. If we are looking at electric field strength, then the beam splitter merely adds and subtracts electric fields.

Now with this introduction, we can get to the main question: Does a photon only interfere with itself? I claim the answer is a resounding NO. It does not make any difference whether the beat is at a high frequency or a low frequency. It makes no difference whether the detector is fast or slow. It makes no difference whether the detector responds to photon count per second or electric field. In all cases the electric fields produced by different photons add or subtract. When these are detected by square law detectors we see differences in intensity which we designate as interference.

John M.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <[ chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu ]( mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu )>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:42pm
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


John M.: 
We are very happy that you have had already grown 10-meter wide fire-break shrubs. Excellent pragmatic thinking! Your example will now be followed by all who live in fire-prone areas.
 
Hello Everybody:  
Heterodyning two CO2 or He-Ne lasers with a fast detector does not validate interference between different “photons”. My teacher, Len Mandel at Rochester, was famous for demonstrating interference between photons from two different Ruby lasers. Experiments were done  by 1968. (In fact, I have used one of his early Ruby lasers for some coherence studies.) I have also done similar work with He-Ne-lasers.
 
(i)            Detector’s interaction characteristics determines what we measure: If you use a slow detector, fast heterodyne signal become time averaged CW signal. Detector displays the superposition effect as the rate of change of oscillating electron transfer from the valence to the conduction band after it executes the non-linear, quadratic energy transfer operation on the resultant linear superposed amplitude stimulations, which it experiences. This is what I call, Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). Without IPM-E, I will keep on repeating old models as absolute scientific truth uttered by science-messiahs.
(ii)          Superposition Principle is not an observable phenomenon in the world of EM waves: Both classical and QM formalism clearly states that the energy transfer from the EM field to a detector is a non-linear square-law process, [(χE1+χE2)*( χE1+χE2)], or [(ψ1+ ψ2)*(ψ1+ ψ2)]; where χ is the first order linear polarizability of the detecting dipole. “χE”  is the physical interaction process. This is evidence based science, “colored” differently by interaction processes in different detectors (IPM-E). We never observe E or ψ in any normal interference experiments with EM waves. So, I am seriously confused as to why we use the correct mathematical formalism; and yet, insist on promoting non-causal interpretations of “evidence based” results, as if they are due to superposition of amplitudes (E1+E2), (or ψ1+ ψ2). Waves, as linear excitations of a tension field, do not exist independent of the parent tension field. And, linear excitations of a tension field cannot execute the non-linear square-law operation. These are all correct mathematics we have been following. Yet, our mental propensity to like and admire mysticism, since our early evolution, is still getting the best of our minds.
 
Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: General [[ mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ]( mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org )] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:25 PM
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
 

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 ]( mailto: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 ]( mailto: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 ]( mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org )>


Cc: "Phil Butler" <[ phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz ]( mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz )>, "Niels Gresnigt" <[ Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn ]( mailto:Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn )>, "Mark, Martin van der" <[ martin.van.der.mark at philips.com ]( mailto: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 ]( mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org )] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [[ mules333 at gmail.com ]( mailto: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 ]( mailto: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 ]( mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins )=[ gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ]( mailto: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 ]( mailto: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 ]( 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 ]( 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 ]( 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&unsubconfirm=1 ]( 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 ]( mailto:afokay at gmail.com )
<a href="[ http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 ]( 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 ]( mailto:afokay at gmail.com )
<a href="[ http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 ]( 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 ]( mailto:mules333 at gmail.com )
<a href="[ http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 ]( 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 ]( mailto:mules333 at gmail.com )
<a href="[ http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 ]( 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 ]( mailto:mules333 at gmail.com )
<a href="[ http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 ]( 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/20171015/18207c5d/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list