[General] Support for Zitterbewegung

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John M,

After the conference, I hope to explore super-strong gravity as a general
relativistic result of energy density rather than mass. I will need to
start by reading your book, since it may have covered some/much of the
groundwork. Some comments below.

Andrew
__________________________________________

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:45 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> Hi Chip,
>
> You said, “I do not yet fully understand how you propose the standing
> waves are confined??”  As I stated in an earlier email, the implied
> internal pressure of an electron with energy of 8x10-14 J and a radius of
> about *λ*c is on the order of  1024 N/m2.  A proton exerts about 1034 N/m3
> and a top quark is about 1045 N/m2. The confinement of these tremendous
> pressures is no problem for my model.  When I build the entire universe out
> of 4 dimensional spacetime, I start with the impedance of spacetime and the
> uncertainty principle.  The uncertainty principle says that the distance
> between two points can vary by ± Lp (± Planck length) and the rate of
> time can vary such that two perfect clocks in flat spacetime can vary by ±
> Planck time.  These are the wave amplitude limits of waves in spacetime
> allowed by quantum mechanics. I go further and say that these waves
> actually exist and I proceed to quantify them, The rest is explained in my
> “foundation” paper and the book, but the result is that spacetime is
> modeled as a sea of these small amplitude waves at all frequencies up to
> Planck frequency.  The implied energy density is about 10113 J/m3.  This
> sounds ridiculous, but it really is quite reasonable if you read the
> implications and model that explains the 10120 difference between the
> observable energy density of the universe (∿10-9 J/M3) and the energy
> density of the quantum mechanical vacuum (∿10113 J/m3).  This model is
> initially justified by the uncertainty principle, but on a deeper level the
> sea of waves in the vacuum causes the uncertainty principle.
>
>
>
> In my book, I show how the tremendous vacuum pressure not only stabilized
> my spacetime-based particles, but this pressure is key to explaining all
> forces.  In my model there is only one truly fundamental force.  This is
> the force exerted by waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light.
> I call this the “relativistic force *F*r” where *F*r = *P*r/*c* where *P*r
> is relativistic power propagating at the speed of light.  For example, this
> force gives the force exerted by photon pressure or the force exerted by
> gravitational waves when they are emitted by rotating binary star systems.
> Most important, this is the force exerted by the small amplitude waves in
> spacetime that form the quantum mechanical vacuum.  The relativistic force
> is always repulsive.  I show how forces that appear to be attraction are
> actually a repulsive force caused by unequal pressure on opposite sides of
> a particle.
>
>
>
> This is not arm waving.  For example, I calculate the gravitational force
> on an electron in the earth’s gravitational field by calculating the
> unequal pressure exerted on opposite sides of the electron.  Everyone else
> in the group is satisfied in saying any model of an electron that
> postulates that an electron possesses 511,000 eV of energy has “explained”
> the gravitational force exerted by an electron.  I say that this is merely
> quantifying the gravitational force without explaining anything.  I know
> that others will bring up curved spacetime or gravitons, but this also is
> not an explanation. [It may be!] A real explanation must be able to start
> with a model of spacetime and a model of a particle, then show how the
> particle model produces curved spacetime.  Even that is not the complete
> explanation because you then have to show how the force with the correct
> vector (attraction) is generated when a particle is prevented from
> following the geodesic.
>

This, of course, is a more complete approach.


> Assuming an analogy to acceleration also does nothing, but this is a long
> explanation and I have to cut it off.
>
>
>
> One last point.  I did not proof read my last post carefully enough.
> There is one word that is out of place.  In the second paragraph I said “I
> am not going to modify some of the points …”  The word “not” should be
> dropped, so it totally changes the meaning of the sentence to: “I am
> going to modify some of the points …”
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/5f25b669/attachment.htm>