[General] Philosophical Insights and Electrical Charge

Wed Apr 29 10:42:54 PDT 2015

Hello Everyone, 

I have been away on a trip for the last week and have not been able to post
my ideas.  However, I have followed the discussion and now I want to give
some philosophical insights.  Everyone is attempting to describe the
internal structure of an electron.  To achieve this goal requires a paradigm
shift away from the current approach to physics.  I will illustrate this
with an example.  A carbon monoxide molecule in a vacuum can only rotate at
115 GHz or integer multiples of this frequency.  It is easy to state this in
the form of a “law” and to write equations relating to this type of
physical effects.  Clearly we have achieved one level of understanding.
However, merely being able to state how molecules behave is not the same as
being able to explain the underlying physics of the universe which causes
these laws. For example: What enforces this quantized rotation? Why is there
quantized angular momentum? These questions cannot be answered by quoting
laws of physics because these questions probe the underlying structure of
the universe which create the laws of physics. I predict that the major
frontier in physics will be the study of the mechanistic structure of
particles, fields and forces.  Therefore, your efforts are on the leading
edge of this revolution.  However, in my opinion you are taking the wrong
approach to answering these tough questions. 

Top-down Versus Bottom-up

I will describe the process that I have used to generate my model of
electrons in particular and the universe in general.  Then I will contrast
that approach with the approach taken by everyone else in this group. The
point that I am attempting to make will emerge from the contrasts between
these two approaches.

The original inspiration for my study was the realization that I was able to
prove that a photon confined in a hypothetical 100% reflecting box possesses
8 properties of a fundamental particle. For example, when the box is moving
in an inertial frame of reference, the confined photon exhibits the
characteristics of de Broglie waves. It also exhibits the correct inertia,
kinetic energy, relativistic length contraction, and relativistic time
dilation. When the confined photon is in a gravitational field it also
exhibits weight. 

Therefore, I saw a connection between a photon and a fundamental particle
such as an electron.  However, I never said that an electron was a bound
photon propagating at the speed of light around a single or double loop.  I
always said that the similarity came from the fact that both an electron and
a photon were made of the same fundamental component.  This gave electrons
and photons many similarities, but there are also important differences.  In
my attempt to find the common basis for photons and particles, I was struck
by big idea which was: The universe is only spacetime.  Therefore I decided
to see if I could “invent” a model of the universe which only used the
properties of 4 dimensional spacetime.  I focused on the fact that QM allows
waves to exist in spacetime provided that their spatial displacement does
not exceed Planck length and their temporal displacement does on exceed
Planck time.

I will not go into any more detail on this subject because the reason for
mentioning this is to illustrate what I call a “bottom-up” approach to
explaining the internal structure of particles as well as also explaining
all fields and forces in the universe. I start with a basic assumption and
attempt to build up to particles, fields and forces.  Everyone else in the
group uses what I call the “top-down” approach which attempts to start
with multiple facts and attempt to extrapolate to a basic structure.  The
problem that I see with this approach is that your explanations of particles
use words like charge, photon, electric field, wave, etc. which all are also
unknown on the mechanistic structural level. 

For example, if “wave” is mentioned as part of the electron description, I
need more details. Are the waves propagating in a medium? What are the
properties of the medium? What is the amplitude and energy density of the
waves?  What is the impedance of the medium?  If “electric field” is
mentioned as part of the wave explanation, I want to know about the
structure of the electric field.  It is not enough to quote laws because we
are now in the realm of underlying structure that causes the laws.  If
“photons” are mentioned, I need to know about the structure of a photon
and the structure of the universe that permits photons to exist.  Is a
photon a quantum of energy propagating through an empty void? What about the
wave properties of a photon? Do the waves imply a medium through which the
waves propagate? Why is there a universal speed limit? 

In other words, I find attempts to explain the internal structure of an
electron by using other terms which also need explanation as the equivalent
of building castles in the sky. The basic foundation is missing.   If you
take the bottom-up approach to explaining physics rather than the top-down
approach, you automatically start with the foundation and build up from
there.

Proposed Charge Conversion Constant

I am going to stop my philosophical thoughts and switch to describing the
physics produced by this approach.  Previously I mentioned that my approach
agreed with zero point energy, QED and QCD in requiring the vacuum to have
tremendous energy density.  I was challenged on this point and this
challenge motivated me to recently develop additional proofs that support
this conclusion. That will be the subject of a post in the future.  For now
I want to briefly mention about my proposed new constant of nature that I
have named the “charge conversion constant η”. 

meter/coulomb

This constant is derived and explained in the attached “foundation” paper
(see pages 238 to 243).  This paper was peer reviewed and published this
month by Springer.  The reason for mentioning this is that this constant
pertains to all models which incorporate a photon or discuss electric field
or charged particles. This constant is an example of the tangible results
that are possible when I start from the bottom-up with the assumption of
waves in spacetime being responsible for everything including photons,
electric fields and charged particles.  

The units of this are meter/coulomb.  The “meter” length term is not
static ruler length, but a polarized distortion of spacetime with units of
length.  When this constant is used to convert the Coulomb force constant
1/4πεo to a property of spacetime, the Coulomb force constant converts to
Planck force c4/G ≈ 1.2x1044 N.  This makes sense in all calculations
involving the Coulomb law.  Also the impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω
converts to the impedance of spacetime c3/G as explained in the paper.  This
has profound implications for any photon model because it says that photons
experience the same impedance as gravitational waves.  

We know that gravitational waves are transverse waves that propagate at the
speed of light and propagate in the medium of spacetime. Therefore, photons
also propagate in the medium of spacetime.  This allows me to characterize
the wave properties produced by photons.  I can specify amplitude, energy
density and the limitations on the maximum energy density imposed by the
physical properties of spacetime.  All of this is explained in the paper and
in more detail in my book.  However, my website will be down for about the
next 2 days, so the book is not currently available.  I challenge anyone to
find a defect in the contention that photons propagate in the medium of
spacetime and that the charge conversion constant always gives reasonable
results.   

John M.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/c8d647f8/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1717 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/c8d647f8/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QM_Foundation_Springer.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 306579 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/c8d647f8/attachment-0001.pdf>