[General] de Broglie Wave Analysis

Sun Apr 19 18:40:04 PDT 2015

Hi John M,

Thanks for including that part of your book again. Very pretty diagrams! I have enjoyed reading it. I have not had occasion to do much with general relativity since graduate school, but it was good to re-visit some of its beauty. I have enjoyed thinking about your postulate of space having that kind of energy density and thinking through some of its consequences.  Till now I have not addressed any of the issues you have raised directly, and you have taken at least one of those as a "criticism". I hope you will not take the following too badly. You have asked, however, for us to flag up what we perceive as any weaknesses in your model. Such a direct question begs a direct answer. There follow one or two of the important ones for me...

I agree that 10113 J/m3  is an impressively large number - big enough indeed. Various estimates of the mass of the universe come in at about "only" 1053 kg giving, roughly, 1070 J or so of rest mass energy in total for the entire universe. So 1043 universes worth (or so) per cubic metre. This means that, even in the volume of a small atom, about a cubic Angstrom, one has enough energy for ten trillion big bangs. At this energy density, even a volume of the electron Compton wavelength cubed has more energy than the entire physical universe, even including estimates of dark matter and dark energy. This is, for me, an awful lot of energy to have no measurable effects at all - even in fluctuations at the quantum scale.

I quite like the boldness of presuming space to be full of such energies, but this is also, surely, the weakest point of your model. The complexity of the properties of space required to account for this, together with the experimental fact of the non-observation of any measureable effects of this stupendous energy and force needs it, for me, to generate a good number of useful results to be worth the effort of carrying.

Useful results, for me, would include such things as the prediction of any particle masses, for example, or of any physical constants other than those, such as hbar, G and c, put in a-priori. I have looked for these in the long paper, but you seem to insert a "new universal constant", η, for charge, and to put in each of the observed particle masses and the presumption of the valence quark masses individually by hand. Am I wrong here?

Further, and even more importantly, the Plank scale is often viewed as that scale at which the current theories of physics, and general relativity and quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics in particular "break down". These are amongst our most important practical theories. In my view any replacement theory must maintain these, at least in the realms where they explain experiment well.  In that context, one really needs to have a convincing argument to show how they are maintained against that immense background of mass and energy at the Plank scale. I have read the first part of your long book, and have skimmed through the rest looking for a discussion on this point. I have found several places where you say it will be discussed "later" but have not yet managed to find the place to which you refer. Perhaps you could point me to the relevant pages?

Coming back to the discussion on particle stability, you seem to be saying that this is somehow caused by the immense pressure. This requires the particle to have some kind of boundary with internal and external pressures across it, does it not? The integrity of deep-sea creatures (or ourselves) does not come from the pressure under which we, or they, live, but from skin and bones (and most especially skin in the case of single celled deep sea organisms). The numbers you come up with in support of stability differ enormously 10113 N/m3for the "vacuum" compared to1024 N/m3 for the electron. Wouldn't the poor little electron get a bit crushed under those forces? Also, does it not follow, in your model, that bigger particles should have higher energies, not the other way round as is observed?

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 1:14 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] de Broglie Wave Analysis

Hello Everybody,

I have received questions about how my particle model is stabilized. Those questions require several steps to explain and this is the first step that also implies a radius and frequency for the electron model.

The vacuum is characterized as a sea of dipole waves in spacetime that are modulating both volume and the rate of time.  These waves are permitted by quantum mechanics to have a maximum amplitude such that the distance between points will vary by ± Planck length and the difference between perfect clocks in flat spacetime will vary by ± Planck time.  These waves are at all frequencies up to Planck frequency which implies energy density of the energetic vacuum is about 10113 J/m3 and pressure is about 10113 N/m3. Therefore, vacuum energy can easily offset the electron’s internal pressure of about 1024 N/m3 if the proper conditions can be achieved.

There are two parts to this model: the “quantum volume” or heart and the “external volume”. The heart of the model is the rotating dipole wave in spacetime in a spherical volume.  The size of this volume will be calculated from the de Broglie wave characteristics.   We are going to ignore the internal structure of the heart of an electron for today and concentrate on the de Broglie waves that are known to exist external to the heart.  We can actually determine the rotational frequency and the wavelength of the disturbance making the de Broglie waves from the known characteristics of the de Broglie waves.

The attached PDF document is several pages out of my book which analyze the de Broglie waves.  I suggest that you first scan the attached PDF document and casually look at the figures before reading the text.  Some parts of the text refers to wave amplitude equations which are explained in the book but not explained in the attached document.  Those equations can be skipped for now.  I have many more figures created in Mathematica that are not included here.  Even if you do not agree this model, this sets a standard for the degree of modeling and analysis that should be achieved.  At a later date I will present more details and figures.  Today, I want to just analyze de Broglie waves. Note that the de Broglie wave analysis implies a frequency and size of the heart of an electron.

John M.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150420/754872a8/attachment.htm>