Hi John,

Good to talk to you again. I am working to make this idea compelling, and I appreciate your vote of confidence.

It is in broad agreement with Samir Mathur's 2021 1st prize winning essay in the Gravity Research Foundation competition, The Elastic Universe. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f27b8/t/609d5462d37887169927b065/1620923493922/Mathur_2021.pdf

So far as Georgina's program goes, I think she is trying to redefine "quantum". I'm not into that, because if it's plausible, it takes too much work to prove mathematically, and I see no practical way to test it. It seems to me that a massless particle divides infinite times, and what's the use of that?

Best,

Tom

    Thanks, Zeeya. Much appreciated, though the title should be "radiation WITHOUT annihilation".

    Tom,

    You make a very solid argument equating the std QM superposition of 'massless particles' with a displacement of physically real spacetime. And that implies a rigidity at the limit of gravitational bound, however tenuous by our macro world registry devices to observe.

    It also implies that a Quantum of energy along with its mass equivalence is transferred across space. I do however agree with Georgi in that the conventional interpretation of 'Quantum' is ill defined. Afterall, the quantum is an empirically derived theoretical measure of the energy transferred over the duration of one full second of time. Yet we are accustomed to counting the actual number of waves in such reception apparatus as good ol' radio. So if we accept that e=hf, then a quantum is nothing more or less than the number of waves of any specified frequency per second, and it is only by experimental estimation of intensity that it can be calculated that only a very few 'quantum' have been observed. So I am pleased that Georgina is getting down into the weeds of experimental comparison towards an ontology which will call into practice an actual mathematical analysis that makes 'hypothesis' something more than conjecture.

    I think we can all agree that "massless particles" continue to be a convenient patch over an experimental lack of understanding. While this does not dispute that light velocity is the limit to acceleration of any size mass, that does not preclude that size of mass may well be the limit to that velocity being achieved. A small enough mass equivalent quantity may have a proportionate upper density bound that would be less than that exhibiting a ballistic, or parabolic function response which is the criteria by which mass is measured. And as always, I continue to hold that energy density varies in direct inverse relation to existant velocity. We would not be able to directly observe that relative density, but if we can theoretically deduce it, we would still be dependent on SR for measurement in observations. best ;-) jrc

    Hi John,

    Not superposition, which is a mathematical artifact. In general relativity, spacetime is a real, physical quantity. Because it has the property of "having an effect ... not itself influenced by physical conditions" it must displace itself. I maintain that the same Newtonian equation that defines mass, applies to spacetime under pressure (the LASER effect, which I plan to expand upon).

    You speak of a "quantum of energy" when Georgina is using a quantum of light--a photon. So I really don't understand what she and you are up to, and I won't have time to study it in the near future. (At my age, everything is in the near future.)

    More, later.

    Best,

    Tom

      Hi Tom,

      LOL, my future is pretty near too! I'm waiting on results for an EKG, apparently I've developed some arrythmia but I don't notice it.

      To my way of thinking, what we generically call 'energy' is a material manifestation of the tension inherent to spacetime conceptually illustrated as the difference between a straight line and a curve. 'Material' connotes substance such as macroscopically experienced solid objects, yet I think we can stretch that to include the physicality of spacetime being provisional of the stuff of a material point. It need not be of such density to exhibit an inelastic response, in parlance it could be quite ephemeral and yet rigid in that it would not be itself influenced. So I can easily envision a soliton manifesting in physical form a whole range of tension density that gives rise to the fields from gravitational response only, across 4 magnitudes of light velocity to the gravitationally compact 'hard' particle with which convention holds the fields are associated. But one does have to narrow things down to a modest enough scope to be able to produce at least some aspect of nature in usable formality. best jrc

      Hi Tom, John, I'm not trying to redefine 'quantum' but questioning the idea. At the outset, there is a question to be asked- When we detect/ measure a photon are we detecting/measuring all that there is ? Or are we only measuring that part which activates the sensor or causes visible effect? In the latter case we can speculate that the detectable portion may be separated from some of the not directly detectable. Which as argued can account for interference on reunion, non local effects after beam splitting; in particular 'interaction free testing.' The sub photon part, while not directly detectable can be known by its effect. (Like an animals presence in an area can be known by its footprint.) That it exists and can be directed may yet have some practical application beyond 'interaction free testing'. As to whether the detectable photon body is divisible, it may well be more cohesive than the sub photon. I offer some experiments to interrogate photon nature.

      I should make clear, that what I'm calling a photon is that existence, a noumenal reality, emitted by an exited atom. Also initiating the phenomenal realty of a photomultiplier click or discreet spot of exposure of a film. The name is also taken to imply 'something ( fitting previous description) that is entire.

      hi Georgena,

      Yes, I got that, and I think its worthwhile to inquire into. There are the Conservation Laws that are a reliable guide to investigation so any partition can be quantifiable within an experimental protocol of total input and total output of measurable effects. I like the Work function of rapidity, myself, in the interpretation of the photoelectric effect, in contravention of the general consensus of a whole quantum valued single particle photon. There is lots of theoretical room to be had in the Transition Zone as well. Best of Luck and don't hesitate to commit to a few mathematical guesses to see what might pan out, you don't have to tell anyone unless you think you've hit on a rationale that promotes an ontological line of reasoning. That's how a lot of discoveries were actually made. The ol' "poke it with a stick" approach. jrc

      John, Georgina:

      As soon as I can penetrate your reasoning enough to comment, I will.

      I've refined my quantum gravity paper: Gravity

      Hey John,

      Usually, when one gives physical meaning to lines and curves, it is in terms of changes in velocity, not an inherent energy in spacetime. That's what special relativity says, too. Change of velocity due to strong gravity ('curved spacetime') does not change the velocity of light. It's the constant by which mass is measured.

      I have a long passage from Einstein on building a theory out of material points, if that's where you're going. Otherwise, I don't get the rest of what you are saying, could be my reading comprehension declining with age.

      Georgina,

      I still can't grasp the value of splitting a quantum. What am I missing? What physical conclusion am I expected to reach?

      Best always, guys -- Tom

        Hi Tom,

        I think one important point is that it allows for physical reality based explanation of 'quantum strangeness', rather than just abstract mathematical. Nicely demonstrated by " interaction free' testing. Which using the partition hypothesis is not interaction free- but enabled by removal from circulation of the interacting (not directly detectable) sub photon.

        Hi Georgina,

        So if it's based in physical reality, it's testable, true?

        I'm confused. You say it's interaction free tested (I don't really know what that means), but your tests are not interaction free. Then if it's already tested, why do you need to introduce another set of conditions that show the existence of an undetectable particle?

          Hi Tom, it's possible to carry out some tests that will give some evidence of photon nature.

          Interaction free testing is suggested by the Erlitzer-Vaidman bomb tester thought experiment . If a QM explanation is used.( A variation of the experiment has been carried out. I don't have the reference to hand). Two sensors are positioned so that they correspond to the 'dark' and 'light' bands of an interference pattern. If there is interference the 'dark band' detector doesn't make a detection; as it is dark, Only the 'light band ' detector detects. However if there is no interference the formerly unresponsive detector can be activated. There is no interference when, according to QM while in superposition , there is non local 'encounter' with the bomb, which is a measurement. The measurement causes the superposition to become instead a localized particle, on the path without a bomb. No interference when the paths are joined and the particle never encountered the bomb, That's why it's called interaction free.

          The partition hypothesis proposes that wave like sub photon companion takes both paths. That gives interference UNLESS the free sub photon is taken out of circulation by a barrier or detector or object in its path. There has to be interaction, by that way of thinking, to loose interference.

          It isn't directly testable but can be known by its effect.

          The tests are not the bomb experiment but asking what happens if the photons nature is this that or the other.

          HI Georgina,

          The bomb experiment sounds to me like a fancy way to observe collapse of the wave function. That could be valuable, for narrowing the field of candidates for a correct quantum theory. Personally, I believe that it can't succeed, merely for the facts that superposition is a mathematical, not physical artifact--and that the transformation of the superposed particle is discontinuous.

          A non-collapsing interpretation of QM (such as Hugh Everett's relative state model) has the advantage of preserving locality without those assumptions of conventional quantum theory. BTW, my research agrees with the Everett model, insomuch as the role of time defaults to a local nonlinear state--as opposed to the conventional nonlocal linear state. It's in the paper.

          As to the nature of the photon--speaking of my paper, which deals a lot with photons--what would you say happens when the mirrors reach zero separation? What is the nature of the trapped photons vs. the photons that escape? What are the consequences of having two sets of photons with different natures?

          Thanks for the clear explanation, much appreciated.

          Tom, I've taken a look at your papers. They are over my head. I don't have any answers to your questions.

          The very end, last paragraph before the acknowledgments.

          Georgina,

          Okay. Then just explain to me what you mean by "photon nature."

          By photon nature i mean Form and function, as it exists and happens within material, noumenal reality. Not the measured or observed phenomenon. Not an abstract 'entity' in mathematical space. I don't presume to know photon nature but I've made some suggestions and given what I think would be the experimental outcomes of such; for the given experimental set up.