<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2941"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2942">Chandra.<br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2943">“Why do we always get perfect experimental validation by propagating Maxwellian wave packets, instead of Einstein’s ‘indivisible light quanta’?<br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2944">Not "always". </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2945"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2946">The recent "Hodge Experiment" rejects the wave model (HF assumptions) of light. Instead light is a photon that causes waves in a medium (ether, "space" of GR, plenum, quantum vacuum). The Hodge Experiment passes coherent light with a higher intensity on one side of the slit and nearly no photons on the other side. Most of the photons land on the side opposite to the high intensity side. Waves according to the wave equation don't do this. This is also seen in the "walking drop" experiment that shows diffraction effects.<br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2947"> <br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2948">Does someone have an model of Maxwellian wave packets that can explain the Hodge Experiment's observation?</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2949">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2950">http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1712</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2951">Until our physics can create a universe, we can only expand our understanding (ability to create outcomes) to explain ever greater parts of our universe.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2952" dir="ltr">Hodge<br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1473329170888_2953"><span></span></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:57 PM, "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv8072186466">
<style><!--
#yiv8072186466
_filtered #yiv8072186466 {font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8072186466 {font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8072186466 {font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8072186466 {font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#yiv8072186466
#yiv8072186466 p.yiv8072186466MsoNormal, #yiv8072186466 li.yiv8072186466MsoNormal, #yiv8072186466 div.yiv8072186466MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 a:link, #yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466MsoHyperlink
{
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv8072186466 a:visited, #yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv8072186466 p
{
margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 pre
{
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466HTMLPreformattedChar
{
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 p.yiv8072186466msonormal0, #yiv8072186466 li.yiv8072186466msonormal0, #yiv8072186466 div.yiv8072186466msonormal0
{
margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466htmlpreformattedchar0
{
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466emailstyle20
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466comment-copy
{}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle24
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle25
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466t-search-snippet-highlight
{}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466t-search-snippet1
{}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle28
{
font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle29
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle30
{
font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle31
{
font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;
color:black;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle32
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle33
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle34
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8072186466 span.yiv8072186466EmailStyle35
{
font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
#yiv8072186466 .yiv8072186466MsoChpDefault
{
font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv8072186466 {
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv8072186466 div.yiv8072186466WordSection1
{}
--></style>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466WordSection1">
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">Hello Everybody!</span></i></b><span style="color:windowtext;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">Please, look through the email. I am trying to respond to many of your comments through this same email; although, a big chunk is relevant to Grahame’s comments addressing
me earlier. </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">I think our debate & discourse is going well; in spite of many disagreements; which are natural.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">Methodology of thinking</span></i></b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">:</span></i><span style="color:windowtext;">
It is, of course, humanely comforting to know that somebody else’s attempt in mapping the cosmic system, which is only partially fathomable, is agreeable to that of mine. So, I appreciate Grahame’s comment. This is because all of our conceptual and mathematical
models are limited by our neural network that originated for successful biological survival. We are finally recognizing this limit and trying to consciously redirect our cerebral evolution. In that process, it is smart to recognize that we are all “blind”,
trying to model the cosmic elephant. To appreciate this, all we need to acknowledge that no sensors, bodily or technology driven, can give us complete information about any interactants under study. Of course, we know that. That is why we have been trying
to convince each other of our different interpretations of the same set of experiment data that have been already done by others; or, we have done ourselves. Data from experiments never have 100% fidelity; neither do the instruments can talk objectively as
to what they have experienced. We insert our diverse interpretations. That is why this continuous debate forum so healthy for all of us to stay humble. [I know I am repeating myself!]</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">Action at a distance:</span></i></b><span style="color:windowtext;"> Newton was the first one to recognize the “incompleteness”
behind his model of Gravity, the inverse square law. The action at a distance is the reality. But this perceived “incompleteness” can be removed, while preserving the causality, once we map all the forces as structurally “existing” “force fields” (potential
gradients) generated around the “particles” at the moment of their formation as localized oscillations of the CTF. My thinking is that the time varying potential gradients in space domain can be perceptible (experimentally verifiable) only during the very
brief moment of particle formation (or their assembly for gravity) or during sudden destruction. Or, some distortion in the potential gradient when the “body” is moving at very high speed. [Yes, I do not want to have an SR interpretation here.]</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">Why particles are not built out of photons</span></i></b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">?:</span></i><span style="color:windowtext;">
To me, the only reality of the cosmic system is a quiescent Complex Tension Field (CTF), except some 4 to 5 % of the energy in the state of various kinds of oscillations.. Everything observable is a form of excitation of this stationary CTF. Perpetually propagating,
and diffractively spreading, photon wave packets and localized particles are different kinds of
<b><i>excited states of the same mother-field</i></b>, the CTF. The inter-convertibility of these two energetic excitations (light-matter interaction) always happens via the parent CTF’s excitation energy taking different forms – whether emission of a photo
electron out of a solid state photo detector, or conversion of a gamma-packet into electron positron pair (after interaction with some heavy nucleus). Neither propagating EM weaves, nor localized “particle” oscillations are built out of each other. They are
two different kinds of excited states of the same CTF. We do not need any wave-particle duality.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">There may be transient quanta of photons at the very moment of quantum transition; but they must very quickly evolve as diffractively propagating EM waves. Photons could
not exist as a localized quanta beyond the brief moment of its birth. Two arguments. (i) None of our great QED fathers, or their followers, have succeeded in cogently localizing photons; as they have been defined as the Fourier mode of the vacuum (to possess
single monochromatic frequency demanded by quantum transitions). The second quantization really mathematical re-package of quantum transition of material particles releasing/absorbing a quantum of energy. They fail to formulate how this released energy evolve
as perpetually propagating waves in the CTF. QM formalism does not have that capability. That is the core limitation of QM formalism that we ought to recognize to advance forward. (ii) All professionals scientists and engineers studying optical phenomena who
need to propagate and manipulate light beams, use Huygens-Fresnel Diffraction integral and/or Maxwell’s equation. These equations have been helping model simple manipulations of light by macro mirrors, our eye-lenses, glass lenses, etc., all the way to micro
entities like <b><i>nanoparticles</i></b>, the most thriving field of optics now, besides bio-photonics. However, in the nano-domain, the quantum properties of materials become clearly manifest and the nanoparticles’ energy exchange is then treated by using
standard QM, without quantizing the interacting EM waves -- <b><i>this is semi-classical model</i></b>. Propagation of EM waves, in free space and within material media, are always modeled by HF integral or Maxwell’s equations.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">Hello Everybody again:
</span></i></b><span style="color:windowtext;">Based on the last paragraph above, I have the following generic question to all of you.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;"> “Why do we always get perfect experimental validation by propagating Maxwellian wave packets, instead of Einstein’s ‘indivisible light quanta’?</span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">I have multiple reasons to frame such a question at this forum. Buried in there, into classical optical experiments, since ancient times to modern times, a lot of subtle
light-matter <b><i>interaction processes</i></b> waiting to be explored further to better understand the Cosmic Elephant. Our, QM formulators were dominantly driven by the “elegance and beauty” of mathematics. Unfortunately, mathematics is only a human invented
logic-system; albeit being the most crucial logic-system to model scientific thinking. We are not in a position to claim that this mathematical logic-system is definitely identical to that of the creator of the cosmic system! I will promote the above question
and solicit answers from through forums also, including (i) our coming biennial 2017 conference at San Diego; (ii) during my yearly workshop at the SPIE Photonics West Conference (Technical Event , “Nature of light: What are photons?”), and (iii) as an editorial
comment in the Journal of Nano Photonics; etc.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">No optical engineer has ever propagated a “light quanta” in the radio to optical domain. But, most of them give lip-service to the word “photons” (light quanta), to avoid
being perceived as living in the eighteenth century! Particle physicists do not have an equation for the propagation of Gamma-photon. They just have been drawing geometric straight lines between centers of interactions in cascading detecting systems. HF diffraction
integral does predict diffraction spreading of EM waves to inversely proportional to the frequency. This brings the second question:</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">What are the necessary physical properties possessed by CTF that allows a non-diffracting Gamma-packet, moving with velocity “c”, and then colliding with a heavy nucleon,
generates a pair of self-looped oscillating particles with opposite charge properties? What properties of CTF endows Gamma-packet to remain non-diffracting? Can we visualize the physical processes? This last question is the key to doing good physics.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Are any of you prepared to delve into these discussions?</span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">Chandra.</span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gravity</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">Sorry, Chandra (not Roy! - it's late!)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">----- Original Message -----
</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span><a title="grahame@starweave.com" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Dr Grahame Blackwell</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">To:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span><a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">Sent:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;"> Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:51 PM</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;"> Re: [General] Gravity</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">Roy (et al)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">Thanks for this. I believe I'm in full agreement with all you've said (as long as I've understood it correctly); my only slight difference in view is, I believe,
a matter of semantics rather than science.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">Like you, I don't accept the concept of 'force-carrying particles'; this concept appears to raise far more questions than it answers (if it answers any) - it certainly
doesn't in any way offer significantly greater insight than the 'action at a distance' proposed by Newton. [Not to put too fine a point on it, I find it an insult to the intelligence as it appears to expect a whole raft of counter-intuitive notions to be
taken on trust.] I agree 100% with your definition of rest-mass, also the additional 'oscillatory energy' that relates to motion, induced by some form of 'force gradient' that is itself an extended consequence (part of the structure) of 'material particles'
and moves concomitantly with them. In this respect such 'force effects' are not in some way communicated at light-speed or faster, they are an integral part of the particle producing that effect: if a complete unified singular object moves as a whole, we
don't propose that one part of the object 'communicates its motion' to another part (at FTL speed) so that it too moves - it just IS a unified moving body. No threat to causality there. The fact that our limited senses don't perceive the whole of that extended
entity doesn't mean that it can't exist - its very action proves that it does, in accordance with our understanding of EM effects.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">My difference in view relates to your observation that particles "are not made of photons"; as I say, I believe this is a matter of semantics - essentialy how one
defines a photon. We agree that they are formed from light-like oscillations of the universal field - i.e. TEM wave packets. If one defines a photon simply as a TEM wave packet then particles are formed from photons; if however we add the stipulation that
a photon radiates rectilinearly from its dipole oscillatory source, then by definition that wave packet forming a particle cannot be a photon. The fact that elementary particles are (or at least can be) initially created from photons is, I believe, established
by Landau & Lifshitz (1934) and demonstrated by the SLAC multiphoton Breit-Wheeler experiment of 1997.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">I'm interested in your observation that the 'force gradient' of a particle will be distorted by a state of motion; I agree that this must be true, since the configuration
of its formative field will be somewhat different. As you say, it would be interesting if it were possible to construct an experiment to demonstrate this - I suspect one would first have to persuade the experimenters that SR is primarily a subjective effect,
so that they don't apply 'SR logic' as an objective truth to their readings!</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">Best regards,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy;">Grahame</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">----- Original Message -----
</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span><a title="chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Roychoudhuri, Chandra</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">To:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span><a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">Sent:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;"> Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;"> Re: [General] Gravity</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of the team:</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chip:</span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">After reading the article by Flandern, sent by Chip, I dug out a possible later publication by Flandern. The link is given below.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:windowtext;">……………………………..</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><a title="Foundations of Physics" href="http://link.springer.com/journal/10701" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#8E2555;">Foundations of Physics</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:windowtext;">July 2002, Volume 32, </span><a title="Issue 7" href="http://link.springer.com/journal/10701/32/7/page/1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#8E2555;">Issue 7</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:windowtext;">, pp
1031–1068</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.35pt;margin-left:0in;background:#FCFCFC;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#333333;">“Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” by
</span><a title="View author's information" href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#8E2555;letter-spacing:.2pt;text-decoration:none;">Tom Van Flandern</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#333333;letter-spacing:.2pt;">, </span><a title="View author's information" href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#8E2555;letter-spacing:.2pt;text-decoration:none;">Jean-Pierre Vigier</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#333333;letter-spacing:.2pt;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">…………………………………………..</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">The beginning caveat – I am not a theorist and am not conversant with the GR math. My knowledge of GR is mostly from review articles without math. Now, after reading Flandern,
Now I believe, like that for SR, GR does also have rather serious foundational problems. And our understanding of momentum of a moving object needs to explored deeper in light of the fact that mass in not some immutable “substance”. It is the perturbation
energy that creates the resonant self-looped oscillation of the cosmic Complex Tension Field (CTF); the rest mass being the original oscillation-inducing energy. Spatial (definitely not space-time) velocity, induced by some “force gradient” adds further
energy to a particle in the form of “kinetic oscillations”. We need to carefully analyze how we measure and interpret “momentum” since mass is not an immutable intrinsic property.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">Even with my limited experimental expertise, I have always intuitively believed that forces are not mediated by various force particles. Thus, I clearly disagree with Flandern
and Vigier. I have said that in many of my publications, including my book.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">Based upon the various intrinsic physical tension properties of the CTF, the self-looped oscillations in the CTF generate various kinds of decaying potential gradients of
the CTF properties around the oscillating “particle”. These gradients are not exactly like the physical curvature in a stretched membrane (prevailing GR analogy). Then the “particles” in the vicinity of each other will move towards or away from each other
depending upon the sign of the potential gradients. all into or are repulsed by this gradient. Hence<b><i>, these force gradients are mobile with the particles and would suffer spatial distortion at very high velocity.</i></b> Attempts to measure these distortion
should open up new frontiers of physics. “The potential gradients representing “forces”, obey the principle of linear superposition; very much like the EM wave amplitudes; even though the former is “stationary” around the parent particle; and the latter is
true propagating wave that follows the classic wave equation.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">LCH should accommodate a new group of experimentalist to design experiments to measure the distortions in the electrostatic “force gradient” generated by speeding electrons
and protons. Speedy protons-electron collision might help reveal the distortion in their gravitational potential gradients. These potential gradient based “forces” are not
<b><i>communicated</i></b> by some particles. Causality is not violated. “c” is not exceeded by anything since even the particles are light-like self-looped oscillations. Note that I am using the phrase, light-like oscillations of the CTF; they are not constructed
out of photons. Photon wave packets are linear propagating excitations of the CTF; perpetually running away from the original point in space where they were created by some dipole oscillation (from radio to nuclear).
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Albrecht:
</span></i></b></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;">In a separate recent email you have raised a very important point, which in some of my epistemology articles underscore as the necessity of assigning the physical parameters
in any physics equation with the hierarchy of “primary”, “secondary”, “tertiary”, etc., based upon the physical roles they play in interactions with other entities; or their emergence out of the CTF. So, I like your argument related to
</span><span>√μ</span><span>₀</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">=1/</span><span>c√(ε</span><span style="color:windowtext;">₀</span><span style="color:windowtext;">)</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">In this context, we may note that Einstein</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">preferred to write m=E/c-squared; because m is not an immutable property; it is an emergent property in our methods of measuring it.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">Sincerely,</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chandra.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8072186466MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;"><img width="165" height="75" id="yiv8072186466_x0000_i1025" style="width:1.7152in;min-height:.7777in;" src="cid:image003.png@01D20928.E75E8980"></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>