[General] Philosophical Insights and Electrical Charge

Wed Apr 29 18:20:52 PDT 2015

John
In investigating and attempting to describe the internal structure of the electron one can come with all sorts of models from the top down or the bottom up. One would like to think they have locked in a solution with those two approaches. 
However, the puzzle of the internal electron may require additional views. Graduate business schools teach two additional required views with the puzzle level and the enterprise architecture level. The puzzle is where pieces are fitted together, usually 1 piece connects with 3 or 4 other pieces. The enterprise level is more of a matrix level. 
The puzzle level is usually two dimensional with adjacent connections and combines the top down and bottom up views into a cohesive and coherent picture. Pieces that are absent or leftover need to be addressed as well. Puzzles assume atomization, in physics terms the smallest amount of matter, but not necessarily an either/or choice nor a black and white solution. One is often reconstructing in the light a picture that has been deconstructed by reductionism without regard to any properties of emergence.
The fourth method is the enterprise framework. In the simplest form, the Bachman framework is a 5 x 6 matrix, commonly used in IT, finance, administration and program management. However, one quickly learns this matrix is a confluence or better yet, a nexus of information from multiple dimensions in both directions. In part, this is a result of pieces that didn't fit or were simple not present in the other three levels. While desirable as a goal, the enterprise level depends on all three other levels at least in the seed round, the first iterative round of examination.
Notably, there are nested solutions which is typical of science. In the past 150 years we have moved from the macro to the molecular to the atomic to the elementary scale. Perhaps there is yet more room at the bottom for yet another level for "quanta" that define the photon for example. And the "quanta" may itself have structure so there may be at least two levels below the elementary particle scale. 
Does the quanta level matter at this point? Not really. We have our hands full at the electron level. We are still trying to describe the electron using a photon and need to make stipulations and assumptions to make progress carefully. And then test those assumptions. Great experiments with great test equipment are also required. Starting with a photon and working up also requires starting with at least the electron, and perhaps the contextual environment of the electron even beyond the free electron model.
For matter in general, the direction of approach also matters. In physics, especially for general relativity and quantum mechanics which in turn implies quantum gravity, the frame of reference is essential but quite confusing at times often requiring careful attention on many levels at once. One only needs to look at the vector simplification from higher order tensors or the scalar-vector theories to realize that one cannot look at a single tensor rank, but all ranks and their permutations. What results is a Monte Carlo analysis approach with a best fit analysis.

The term mechanistic approach is too closely associated with metaphysics. I would say that the universe is describable, perhaps to the point of an equation set. It's certainly not obvious. And there is often multiple ways to reach the same conclusion even in mechanics; we can use conservation of momentum or equally as valid is conservation of energy in most cases. One 5D theory, Dynamic Theory (Williams 1993) starts with energy density in a 5x5 matrix and uses a thermodynamic approach to show how all other 4D theories (GRT and QM) can be derived from 5D. 
The proposed Charge Conversion Constant appears to be valid external to the electron. I might accept it but I'm not sure that all of the assumptions have been addressed. 
For the box one is building no matter how great or small, out of the box thinking especially at the "atom" level requires context and assumptions. The speed of light may be valid for all levels, but the actual value will differ on conditions. Challenge the conditions.

Clearly, GRT limits the velocity of light to c. However, that is contextual and has problems below the Planck limits. At a nested level within the box, in the Theory of the Electron (Dirac 1938) he wondered in the paper why the photon traversing an electron appeared faster than expected. Could it be that the electron has a negative vacuum?
While I agree the universe may seem like only spacetime, on larger scale there is the multiverse. 
As to spacetime, some of us do attempt to think of spacetime as not just being flat like earth used to be thought of, but curved and perhaps even a vortex. General relativity theory (GRT) provides a non-linear basis for one aspect of what we know. However, GRT has a major disconnect with quantum mechanics(QM). The Standard Model lost it's symmetry with Higgs, some would say with the gluon family. And CPT violations tell us the Standard Model is not the complete picture. The clue is that dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE) are 95% of the universe. So we have a cGh model that describes only 5% of the universe we know.
Therefore, any photon model we come up with may not be a universal model unless it explains something more that GRT, QM and SM such as DM, DE and CPT. 
A model that predicts something new may be of more value than that which just fits historical experimental data, although that would be a good start. Proposing an experiment to test that model and any prediction would prove invaluable. 

Best
David

      From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:42 AM
 Subject: [General] Philosophical Insights and Electrical Charge

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.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150430/d474d7e2/attachment.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/20150430/d474d7e2/attachment.png>