<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Al:</p>
<p>" <font color="#000099">"Photons" (given anybody's definition)
cannot be directly an object of observation. PEROID.</font> "</p>
<p>In this case please explain the corresponding process in my
experiment, i.e. the detection of photons by pair production where
all necessary physical quantities for an individual photon have
been conserved. The distance between generation and detection was
about 10 m. <br>
</p>
<p>And hi Chandra:</p>
<p>Why can we not assume that the particles "photons" have a "pilot
wave" in the sense of de Broglie around them as similarly have
e.g. electrons and neutrons? And those pilot waves follow similar
rules like the Maxwell equations?<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.09.2016 um 02:26 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-6af169c1-0547-44cf-bcef-50df7b3959ed-1473639982289@3capp-webde-bs50"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi all:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To respond to Chndra's request, consider:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Photons" (given anybody's definition) cannot be
directly an object of observation. PEROID. What is
actually seen and manupulated "in the lab" are photo
electrons. This is true at both ends: generation and
detection. An obvious consequence of this reality is that,
what observations and theories address in NOT photons or
waves at all, but streams of so-called photo-electrons
(photocurrents, etc.) From what is seen of such
photocurrents then, it is SURMISED what caused the observed
behaviour---which is, in principle, guesswork, alogical.
Further, insofar as electrons are themselves "quantized"
their behaviour is necessarily that of collections of
countable entities. So much is tautological. In the end,
humankind does not know the true nature of the interaction
of charged particles; the best that can be done is to seek
to procure self consistent matmematical descriptions of the
behviour of charge particle streams at both end of the
interaction. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The accumulatedd volklore abut charged particle
interaction mostly fails totally to take these
consdierations consistently into account. Compton and
whoever else, notwithstanding.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For what it's worth, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
11. September 2016 um 14:12 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Chip Akins" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Gravity</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: black;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
p {
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
pre {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 10.0pt;
font-family: "Courier New";
color: black;
}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 8.0pt;
font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;
color: black;
}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 8.0pt;
margin-left: 0.5in;
line-height: 105.0%;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.5in;
line-height: 105.0%;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.5in;
line-height: 105.0%;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {
margin-top: 0.0in;
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-bottom: 8.0pt;
margin-left: 0.5in;
line-height: 105.0%;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar {
font-family: Consolas;
color: black;
}
span.BalloonTextChar {
font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;
color: black;
}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0 {
margin-right: 0.0in;
margin-left: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0 {
font-family: Consolas;
color: black;
}
span.emailstyle20 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.comment-copy {
}
span.EmailStyle27 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.EmailStyle28 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.t-search-snippet-highlight {
}
span.t-search-snippet1 {
}
span.EmailStyle31 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
span.EmailStyle32 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.EmailStyle33 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
span.EmailStyle34 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
span.EmailStyle35 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.EmailStyle36 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
span.EmailStyle37 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
span.EmailStyle38 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: windowtext;
}
span.EmailStyle39 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
span.EmailStyle40 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: rgb(153,51,102);
}
span.EmailStyle41 {
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
-->
<div style="background-color: white;">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">Hi Chandra</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">Attached is a slightly updated draft
of the brief article.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="color: windowtext;"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 10, 2016
9:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gravity</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">Many thanks <b>Chip</b>, for
your brief thesis. Please give me some time to
assimilate your points before I response. I
value your mode of thinking.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">Al: </span></b><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;color: rgb(153,51,102);">May I request
you to respond to Chip’s current view as
expressed in this latest email? You have
responded to similar quires before posed by
Albrecht, etc.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(153,51,102);">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;color: rgb(153,51,102);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(181,196,223) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 10, 2016
10:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gravity</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">Hi Chandra</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">It has taken me a few days to put
together a very rough and abbreviated answer to
your email below.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">This is in no way a complete treatment
of the subject from my perspective, but rather
kind of an overview.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">I know that you are not of the same
opinion, but neither was I when I started this
research. I was of the opinion that light and
low energy EM radiation was not quantized. It
just did not fit my perception of what was going
on. However, after taking a much closer look,
which took a few years of study, my opinion
changed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">So what follows is an early draft of a
summary on the quantization of EM radiation,
written from my perspective…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">We are able to measure a wide range of
properties and parameters which we attribute to
light. Historically this information has led to
confusion about exactly what light is. We
measure a wave-like behavior in many
experiments, and we use waves of electromagnetic
radiation for literally thousands of different
purposes. However we can also see particle-like
behavior in certain circumstances.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Among the properties we detect when
studying light is the appearance of spin angular
momentum. This angular momentum (spin) of light
is measured to be the value ħ under many
circumstances, if we assume that light is
comprised of photons which obey Planck’s rule
E=hv. This spin angular momentum cannot
logically be attributed to the spin angular
momentum of the fermions (1/2 ħ) with which
light reacts.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Some who have studied light in depth
for years insist light or electromagnetic
radiation is just a wave. However other
scientists, who have also studied light
carefully, insist light’s behavior demands light
come in discrete quanta, which we call photons.
Strong arguments persist for both perspectives.
Many physicists simply attribute the mysteries
of light to another mystery called
“wave/particle duality”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Herein we will address the properties
of light and provide an explanation for those
properties, as well as propose a simple model
which unifies the seemingly contradictory
wave-like and particle-like reaction data we
have on the behavior of light.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Properties
of Light</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Maxwell’s equations disclose a host of
properties and behavior for light. And they do
such a good approximation that they have served
us well since 1865 when Maxwell published.
Huygens-Fresnel’s diffraction integral also
shows us properties and behavior of light when
diffracted. The Huygens-Fresnel’s diffraction
integral serves optical engineers well because
it quite accurately predicts the behavior of
light. These two bits of information are
compelling enough to convince some that light
and electromagnetic radiation are only comprised
of waves.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">However, the photo electric effect, and
Compton scattering provide some additional
information which we cannot ignore in our quest
to fully understand the nature of light.
Regarding Compton scattering, we quote from
Wikipedia, “The effect is important because it
demonstrates that light cannot be explained
purely as a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave"
target="_blank" title="Wave"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">wave</span></a> phenomenon. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering"
target="_blank" title="Thomson scattering"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">Thomson scattering</span></a>, the
classical theory of an <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave"
target="_blank" title="Electromagnetic wave"><span
style="color: windowtext;text-decoration:
none;">electromagnetic wave</span></a> scattered
by charged particles, cannot explain low
intensity shifts in wavelength (classically,
light of sufficient intensity for the electric
field to accelerate a charged particle to a
relativistic speed will cause radiation-pressure
recoil and an associated Doppler shift of the
scattered light,… but the effect would become
arbitrarily small at sufficiently low light
intensities regardless of wavelength). Light
must behave as if it consists of particles, if
we are to explain low-intensity Compton
scattering. Compton's experiment convinced
physicists that light can behave as a stream of
particle-like objects (quanta), whose energy is
proportional to the light wave's frequency.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">So with this seemingly contradictory
information it is quite easy to see how there
are differing opinions regarding the nature of
light.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">In order to sort out this dilemma, let
us consider a more total picture of what we know
of light and of particles. One phenomenon which
also initially seems to add some confusion to
the scenario, but eventually helps us better
understand, is the wave-like behavior of
electrons in electron double-slit experiments.
Here we have objects which are clearly
particles, acting like waves.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">For many years, I must admit, I held
the opinion, and actively defended the position,
that electromagnetic radiation was not
quantized, but was just a wave in space.
However, eventually, and with much study and
effort, I now feel the overwhelming evidence in
nature demands a bit of a different perspective.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">If we use the information above, and
imagine that space has a set of rules, a
controlling set of properties, which govern the
behavior of energy as it propagates through
space, and we imagine that these rules are
definable and universal, then we can develop a
model for light which dispels the confusion
surrounding this “wave-particle” duality. We
can then see how it is that both particles and
light are made of waves. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Properties
of Space</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Maxwell’s equations disclose to us some
of the properties of space and the way space
reacts to energy (in the form of waves)
propagating through space. These equations are
an accurate macro view of a substantial portion
of the important properties of space with
regards to the behavior of light. But they
simply do not tell the whole story. Maxwell’s
equations do not explain the spin angular
momentum of light and fermions, and do not
explain why electrons can behave as waves. To
get the rest of the information we need to look
at the behavior of the micro world of particles.
In this micro, subatomic particle domain, E=hv,
Planck’s rule is paramount for our understanding
of more of this puzzle. To understand light we
have to discuss the properties of space, in some
detail, simply because light waves propagate
through space, and the properties of space
determine exactly how these waves can move. In
this context we will then postulate that
elementary fermionic particles are comprised of
confined waves of energy, propagating in
confinement within the particle, at the same
velocity that the waves in light propagate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">There are at least two interpretations
for the application of Planck’s rule. In one
case we can assume that Planck’s rule, E=hv,
only applies to fermions, and that light waves
are not inherently quantized by this rule, but
just appear quantized to us, because all of the
fermionic emitters and absorbers are quantized
by this rule. Another case for the
interpretation of the application of Planck’s
rule is to assume that the properties of space
are universal, and therefore the same for all
energy waves propagating through space, so that
E=hv would apply to all waves. Quantization
would then be an inherent behavior of energy
propagating in space. This author believes the
second interpretation listed above to be the
more appropriate representation of what we
observe in nature. There are compelling reasons
for taking such a position regarding the nature
of space, light, and matter. If we follow this
postulate we are able to answer many otherwise
unanswered questions, and sort out solutions to
puzzles we would simply not be able to solve
using the first interpretation listed above.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Planck’s
Rule</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Let us follow a line of reasoning which
indicates that Planck’s rule applies to all
energy propagating through space. Then if matter
is comprised of confined waves of energy, as
postulated above, Planck’s rule would apply
equally to particles of matter, and to the
quantization of light. So that <i>E=hv</i>
would be a universal rule. Therefore this rule
would be attributable to, and caused by, the
universal properties of space. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">In order for Planck’s rule to be such a
universal property there must be a cause, a
property of space, which makes this rule work.
It is not a new perspective to postulate that
there is a quantization of action defined by <i>E=hv</i>,
Planck, Einstein, as well as many others, have
already suggested quite profoundly that this
quantization of action must exist. Here we are
just adopting the view that such a quantization
of action is a universal property of space.
Making this assumption has some significant
benefit in solving several of the puzzles of the
physical universe.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Now we need to better define the term
“quantization of action”. Let us start with a
couple of the properties we have discussed. The
spin angular momentum of light, and Planck’s
rule. We can see from Maxwell’s equations that
light, on the macro scale, is comprised of what
we detect to be waves, with properties
remarkably similar to those of transverse waves
in an elastic solid.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">If light is comprised of discrete
quanta or “photons” then the transverse spin
angular momentum of each photon is measured as
being the value ħ (<i>the reduced Planck’s
constant</i> </span><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;position: relative;top: 7.0pt;"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part6.1FB9EF8B.A17758CD@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.1458in;height: 0.2812in;"
height="27" width="14"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">). Then if we treat
the photon as a rotational transverse wave,
which makes one rotation on one wavelength, we
have a starting model to examine.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">The measured longitudinal momentum of
one of these photons is</span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: black;position: relative;top:
7.0pt;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part7.AD0839A3.3C782C5F@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.427in;height: 0.2812in;"
height="27" width="41"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">. Where <i>p</i>
represents longitudinal momentum, <i>E</i>
represents the energy of the photon, and <i>c</i>
of course represents the forward propagation
speed of light. In order for us to measure a
spin angular momentum of ħ for these photons we
have to assign an “action radius” <i>r </i>to
this rotational wave with the dimensional value
of the measured wavelength </span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: black;position: relative;top:
7.0pt;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part8.7CC0FE90.5057D8AC@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.5104in;height: 0.2812in;"
height="27" width="49"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">divided by 2π</span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: black;position: relative;top:
7.0pt;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part9.4C8AC1F6.C4FFB442@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.75in;height: 0.302in;"
height="29" width="72"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">. This yields</span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: black;position: relative;top:
3.0pt;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part10.874E36B4.94E24EB9@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.5625in;height: 0.1979in;"
height="19" width="54"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Now we have a simple model of a single
wavelength “photon” with energy E, momentum p,
and (left or right) spin angular momentum ħ.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">This model displays several important
properties for such a photon but does not yet
explain a cause for the quantization of action.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">If this wave is confined, in a helical
rotational form, which displays a longitudinal
momentum of p, then there must be a force of
confinement which acts against that momentum
causing the spin of this wave. From the
information listed above can calculate what
amount of force would need to be present for
this confinement. The transverse force F<sub>c</sub>
required for such confinement of this wave, with
its momentum, would be calculated using a basic
centripetal force calculation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Since centripetal force is momentum <i>p</i>
multiplied by velocity (<i>v</i> or in this case
<i>c</i>), over the radius, we can state that:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part11.50BACAED.A0C99C3C@a-giese.de"
style="width: 1.0833in;height: 0.3437in;"
height="33" width="104"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">We have now calculated a force which
could confine the wave of a photon in the manner
we have described. If our assumptions to this
point are correct then this force would be the
explicit cause for Planck’s rule. Now we will
explore a bit to see if this force has any basis
in our existing body of physics knowledge.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">First let us inspect the relative
strength of this force compared to other known
forces. Probably the easiest force to use is the
force of electric charge.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">In order to compare the strength of
this force <i>F<sub>c</sub></i> to the force <i>F<sub>e</sub></i>
of two electric charges separated by the
distance <i>r</i>, we can use the following
steps:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part12.DA5B412A.8620ADDD@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.9375in;height: 0.4375in;"
height="42" width="90"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Then for the relationship between <i>F<sub>e</sub></i>
and <i>F<sub>c</sub></i> we find:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part13.05C0B642.EDA65FC4@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.4687in;height: 0.4062in;"
height="39" width="45"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Where α represents the fine structure
constant. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Since the nuclear strong force is 1/α
stronger than the force of electric charge<i> F<sub>e</sub></i>,
we can see that this force of confinement <i>F<sub>c</sub></i>
for the photon would have to be exactly the same
strength as the strong nuclear force in order to
confine the photon wave in the manner we have
described.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Cause
of the Confinement Force</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">We are able to calculate this
confinement force <i>F<sub>c </sub></i>from
first principles as well. Let us illustrate how
this can be done:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part14.BC658A8B.4112526C@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.6979in;height: 0.375in;"
height="36" width="67"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Which simplifies to:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part15.DEF3BFB5.844B979E@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.5625in;height: 0.375in;"
height="36" width="54"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">As it turns out the more accurate
simplified form of this equation is:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part16.21F3A77F.9A223AC7@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.6979in;height: 0.375in;"
height="36" width="67"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Where S represents the spin number of
the particle (1 or ½).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Indications
of the Confinement Force F<sub>c</sub> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">1.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">If photons exist as
discrete light quanta then some form of
confinement is required to cause them to be
quantized. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">2.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">The relationship
E=mc<sup>2</sup> is clearly understandable if
matter is made of confined waves of energy. If
fermions are comprised of propagating energy as
light is, then they are confined waves of
energy, so a confinement force is required to
create fermions in this scenario. As confined
waves of energy they would require a confinement
force. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">3.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">Following the
discussion above, the confinement force required
for photons and fermions is precisely the same
magnitude as the strong nuclear force. So we
are not proposing that there is a new force,
only that the force we had identified as the
“strong nuclear force” has a much broader
manifestation then we had previously imagined.
It is probably more accurate therefore to call
this force the “confinement force” instead of
the “strong nuclear force”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Regrettably, in a short article, there
is no space to cover all of the many way that
this force helps to solve many of the puzzles
and mysteries of physics. So we will leave that
discussion for later review.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Photon
Behavior</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">A photon model, such as the one
described, inherently has a set of attributes
due to its structure and the nature of these
waves in space.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Diffraction behavior is well worth
discussion. A Photon with lower energy (longer
wavelength</span><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color:
black;position: relative;top: 7.0pt;"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part17.3235F168.B0D0715D@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.5104in;height: 0.2812in;"
height="27" width="49"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">). This lower energy
photon also has a larger radius</span><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: black;position: relative;top:
7.0pt;"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part9.4C8AC1F6.C4FFB442@a-giese.de"
style="width: 0.75in;height: 0.302in;"
height="29" width="72"></span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;">. With a longer
structure (wavelength), and a larger transverse
extent the lower energy photon is diffracted
less than a more energetic version. Due to this,
the photon would follow a path much like the
path a simple wave would follow. But there are a
few slight differences which are detectible in
experiment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">One reason that the low energy photon
is diffracted less, is that the confinement
force F<sub>c</sub> is so much less in a lower
energy photon. This low energy photon structure
is therefore a less rigid form than a higher
energy photon. The wavelength of the photon,
and its radius, are so much longer than the
wavelength or radius of the particles, or atoms,
or even molecules it encounters. Causing the
incident objects to have less influence on the
photon’s overall trajectory. The smaller (more
energetic) a photon is, the “stiffer” it is, and
the more easily these objects (due to their
size) can have a large influence on its
trajectory. We can see the results of this
phenomenon with a simple optical prism. This
mode of reaction is due to the size and
stiffness of the photon and the particles with
which it interacts. However, when the rigidity
of the photon is equal to or greater than the
rigidity of an electron, we will see an entirely
different behavior. Reflection of the photon
will become the prevailing reaction and we will
see very little diffraction.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">1.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">If a single wave of
monochromatic light has spin angular momentum
then there must be a force which causes the
spin.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">2.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">If there is spin in
a single wave of monochromatic light then there
is a transverse helical confinement of the wave
which results from that spin.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">3.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><i><span
style="font-size: 14.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">If
we follow this line of reasoning suggesting
the force F<sub>c</sub> exists, we can see how
it is that fermions can be formed from these
waves of energy which propagate through space.
We then have a cause for Planck’s constant,
and a way to tie many of the physical
constants together and show cause for the fine
structure constant as well.</span></i><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">
<b>(This part of these findings is to me the
most convincing, but there is not room to
cover all of this here.)</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"
style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">4.</span><span
style="font-size: 7.0pt;line-height:
105.0%;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height: 105.0%;">If Planck’s rule is
a universal property of space which regulates
the behavior of energy propagation through space
(wave action), then it is reasonable to assume
that this quantization of action is caused by a
force F<sub>c</sub> which is ever-present when
these waves of energy propagate through space.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Conclusion</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">Given the overwhelming evidence from
experiment, and the results of implementing the
force F<sub>c</sub> in our formulae and
definitions, it is reasonable to conclude that
photons exist, and that light and
electromagnetic radiation is in the form of
photons.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">So this premise suggests that light is
in the form of quantized rotational waves of
energy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;">For light and lower energy EM
radiation, these quanta have such a small amount
of energy that they must come in very large
numbers for us to normally be able to detect
them. It simply takes a lot of them at very low
energies to have enough energy to move an
electron. So in our day to day observations,
this low energy radiation will just look like
waves of energy. It is only when we take great
care that we can see the results of this
quantization in the visible spectrum and below.
But the evidence is there.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;">Chip Akins</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="color: windowtext;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 07, 2016
3:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gravity</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Hello Everybody!</span></i></b><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">I think our debate & discourse
is going well; in spite of many disagreements;
which are natural.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Methodology of thinking</span></i></b><i><span
style="font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">:</span></i><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Action at a distance:</span></i></b><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Why particles are not built out
of photons</span></i></b><i><span
style="font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">?:</span></i><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Hello Everybody again: </span></i></b><span
style="font-family: "Times New Roman"
, serif;color: windowtext;">Based on the last
paragraph above, I have the following generic
question to all of you. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:
14.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:
14.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">Are
any of you prepared to delve into these
discussions?</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:
14.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Chandra.</span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="color: windowtext;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<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 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gravity</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color:
navy;">Sorry, Chandra (not Roy! - it's late!)</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border: none;border-left: solid
navy 1.5pt;padding: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in
4.0pt;margin-left: 3.75pt;margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-right: 0.0in;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">-----
Original Message ----- </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:
rgb(228,228,228);"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="grahame@starweave.com"
target="_parent"
title="grahame@starweave.com"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">Dr Grahame Blackwell</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> Saturday,
August 27, 2016 11:51 PM</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial
, sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> Re:
[General] Gravity</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Roy (et al)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Best regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Grahame</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">-----
Original Message ----- </span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border: none;border-left: solid
navy 1.5pt;padding: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in
4.0pt;margin-left: 3.75pt;margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-right: 0.0in;margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:
rgb(228,228,228);"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
target="_parent"
title="chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">Roychoudhuri,
Chandra</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;">
Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial , sans-serif;color: windowtext;">
Re: [General] Gravity</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of
the team:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" ,
serif;color: windowtext;">Chip:</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">……………………………..</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://link.springer.com/journal/10701"
target="_blank" title="Foundations of
Physics"><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(142,37,85);">Foundations of Physics</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">July
2002, Volume 32, </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://link.springer.com/journal/10701/32/7/page/1"
target="_blank" title="Issue 7"><span
style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(142,37,85);">Issue 7</span></a><span
style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">, pp 1031–1068</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:
0.0in;margin-bottom: 9.35pt;margin-left:
0.0in;background: rgb(252,252,252);"><span
style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(51,51,51);">“Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational,
Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions” by </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-1"
target="_blank" title="View author's
information"><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(142,37,85);letter-spacing:
0.2pt;text-decoration: none;">Tom Van
Flandern</span></a><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(51,51,51);letter-spacing: 0.2pt;">, </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1016530625645#author-details-2"
target="_blank" title="View author's
information"><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color:
rgb(142,37,85);letter-spacing:
0.2pt;text-decoration: none;">Jean-Pierre Vigier</span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">…………………………………………..</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" ,
serif;color: windowtext;">Albrecht: </span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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
style="font-family: Helvetica , sans-serif;">√μ</span><span
style="font-family: "Cambria Math"
, serif;">₀</span><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Helvetica , sans-serif;">=1/</span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica , sans-serif;">c√(ε</span><span
style="font-family: "Cambria Math"
, serif;color: windowtext;">₀</span><span
style="font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">)</span><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">. </span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;color:
windowtext;">In this context, we may note
that Einstein</span><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;color: windowtext;"> </span><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman" , serif;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">Sincerely,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
12.0pt;font-family: "Times New
Roman" , serif;color: windowtext;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: black;"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part31.C346CD50.84A9E254@a-giese.de"
style="width: 1.7187in;height: 0.7812in;"
height="75" width="165"></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>