[General] Complex Tension Filed (CTF)

Sat Aug 1 00:14:58 PDT 2015

Thank you Chandra, David and Andrew,

I will attempt to answer the questions later.  For now I only have time for a quick answer on one point.  Chandra mentioned frames of reference, so below I have copied and pasted a small portion of my book addressing my views on this subject.

John M.

Are All Frames of Reference Really Equivalent?   A basic assumption of relativity is that all frames of reference are equivalent. The CMB rest frame is clearly the preferred frame for cosmological purposes, but the laws of physics are presumed to work equally well in all frames of reference. Experimental observations have not detected any preference for frames of reference, but does this mean that ultra-relativistic frames relative to the CMB rest frame are equivalent? Recall that in chapters 4 and 11 the subject of the spectral energy density of zero point energy (quantized harmonic oscillators) was discussed. It was stated: 

“This spectrum with its ω3 dependence of spectral energy density is unique in as much as motion through this spectral distribution does not produce a detectable Doppler shift. It is a Lorentz invariant random field. Any particular spectral component undergoes a Doppler shift, but other components compensate so that all components taken together do not exhibit a Doppler shift.”  

There is one problem with this concept. Vacuum fluctuations have a cutoff frequency equal to Planck frequency ωp. If this cutoff frequency is symmetrical when viewed from the CMB rest frame, then there must be an ultra-relativistic frame of reference (relative to the CMB) where the asymmetry becomes obvious. An example will help to define this question.   We can currently accelerate an electron to energy of 50 GeV. This is a relativistic Lorentz factor of γ ≈ 105 relative to the CMB rest frame. However, a frame of reference with γ = 105 does not come close to testing the questions related to the limits of extreme ultra relativistic frames of reference. Imagine an electron with an ultra-relativistic speed with γ ≈ 2.4 ×1022 as seen from the CMB rest frame. This is the Lorentz factor where the electron’s de Broglie wavelength λd would be shorter than Planck length (λd ≈ λc/γ approximation valid when γ >>1). This is very close to the speed of light but it does not equal the speed of light. Therefore, it is hypothetically a permitted frame of reference for an electron. 

However, in the CMB rest frame the electron would have a de Broglie wavelength less than Planck length and de Broglie frequency exceeding Planck frequency. According to the premise of this book, spacetime is not capable of producing this wavelength and frequency.  Also, in the electron’s frame of reference there would be an extreme redshift in one direction of the dipole waves in spacetime required to stabilize the energy density (pressure) of the electron. This redshift would prevent the vacuum energy from exerting the pressure required to stabilize an electron in this frame of reference. If the universe is only spacetime, then this frame of reference is not permitted for an electron. Instability would appear as an electron approached the Planck length/frequency limit as seen from the CMB rest frame. The electron would exhibit properties in this ultra-relativistic frame of reference that the electron does not possess in the CMB rest frame. Other particles would exhibit unusual properties and instabilities at different ultra‑relativistic frames relative to the CMB rest frame. 

For another example, in chapter 9 we determined that photons are quantized waves propagating in the medium of the spacetime field. This implies that a photon is not permitted in any frame of reference which would appear to have a wavelength shorter than Planck length in the CMB rest frame. There is only one spacetime field for all frames of reference. This field is not capable of propagating waves shorter than the shortest wavelength wave in the field. The current record for the highest energy photon ever observed is a 12 TeV gamma ray (∿ 2×10-6 J) which has wavelength of about 10-19 m. This energy photon is permitted in our frame of reference, but it would not be permitted in any frame of reference which exceeded about γ ≈ 1016 relative to the CMB. The reason is that this photon would have a wavelength less than Planck length when viewed in the CMB rest frame and the energy would exceed Planck energy. This implies that the laws of physics change in these extreme frames of reference.

String theory is based on three starting assumptions which are expressed as mathematical equations. These are 1) Lorentz invariance, [the laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference] 2) analyticity [a smoothness criteria for the scattering of high energy particles after a collision] and 3) unitarity [all probabilities always add up to one]. The speed of light is the same in all uniformly moving frames of reference, but the laws of physics are not. Therefore the contention is that Lorentz invariance is not a valid assumption for all uniformly moving frames of reference. String theory incorporates this erroneous assumption and all the conclusions based on this assumption are questionable.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:55pm
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Complex Tension Filed (CTF)

John M.: I am sorry that I could not respond to your questions earlier, being busy with too many other responsibilities.
1.      Spacetime vs. space only: We both subscribe to the position that space as “something substantial” is the final frontier of physics. But, I am not in tune with your “spacetime”. In my viewpoint, incorporating “running time -t” as a physical dimension of the universe is heading in the wrong direction to understand nature. Our anchor-able knowledge derives from human interpretations of experimentally measurable parameters. Running time is not a directly measurable parameter of anything in this universe. So, we should not assign time as a modifiable and inherent parameter of nature. Frequency is a measurable parameter. By being fooled by impressively sophisticated theories, many people are devoting serious efforts to travel in time! What physical parameter will an engineer manipulate to travel in time? In contrast, our engineers have invented a variety of methods to impart velocity to material carriers to travel in space. 
2.      Complex Tension Field (CTF): CTF is not a theoretical concept of mine. Almost every single successful theories, including Newton’s gravity, imply space is not empty. So, I have renamed ether with a more physically descriptive name CTF, taking cue from epsilon and mu, which  determining the velocity of light, whether in space with one H2 per cc, or 10<23> molecules per cc in some solids. Further, our wave equation clearly tells that it is the tension field held by the medium whose linear excitation generates the propagating wave. The agent that perturbs the tension field is not creating the wave velocity.  So, ether as CTF is the correct explanation. In a paper to be presented at San Diego, I will explicitly discuss that stationary CTF is the inertial reference frame for the entire universe. Results of Michelson-Morley and related experiments can be clearly understood with this model. 
CTF holds the 100% energy of the universe. No Dark Energy or Dark Matter is needed. Everything is its oscillations. Attractions-repulsions are secondary and tertiary potential gradients of different “signs” of the CTF generated by virtue of localized self-looped oscillations and their assemblies. 
3.      Particles as “doughnuts” of CTF: I have also succeed in removing the wave-particle duality by suggesting particle as localized self-lopped oscillation of the same CTF. I have also replaced de Broglie waves by a separate frequency of oscillation of particles as they gain kinetic energy. The “rest energy” of a particle is that nonlinear perturbation energy, which succeeds in generating a self-looped resonant oscillation. So, there is really no rest mass or relativistic greater mass; yes there is a gain in kinetic energy (over and above the intrinsic rest energy) when one of these “doughnut” gains velocity. There is only inertia of motion of  the “doughnuts”! I do not need Higg’s Boson to provide masses to any stable particles; because they do not have masses.
4.      Quantum superposition effect (remove wave-particle duality): In my position paper (attached again), I proposed a clear two slit experiment with Rb-atoms to remove the “only mystery of quantum mechanics” as a real physical superposition of multiple particles stimulating a detector molecule simultaneously.

My key point is that I understand that nobody can construct a “final theory”; and my proposals are quite modest. However, I take slow forward steps while staying anchored to modeling nature by conjecturing the interaction processes, not just mathematical model alone. 

I hope this helps to differentiate between my space model as CTF and your model as Spacetime. There is no running time as a physical parameter.

Sincerely,
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of john at macken.com
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 6:03 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Hello Everyone,

I am currently in Iceland and starting tomorrow I will be in Greenland for 7 days. Most of that time I will definitely be out of email contact and the rest of the time it is questionable if I will have any internet. I will be returning to the US just before the conference. I will arrive in San Diego about noon on Monday, Aug. 10. Therefore I will miss the Sunday night get-together.

I have found it very hard to write the concise answers required for the questionnaire. The reason is that I have much more detailed answers for each of the questions than most other people in the group. For example, I have just finished what I believe is the final substantive draft of my book titled “The Universe is Only Spacetime”. It is now over 400 pages. The portion of the book addressed by the questions extends from chapter 4 to chapter 11. This is a total of 134 pages. Furthermore, I get into substantial quantitative detail and proofs which make short answers impossible. 

For example, with electrons I have explained and quantified two components of the electron model. This model does not derive either the electron’s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, if these two numbers are provided, I can derive the electron’s energy, inertia, gravitational curvature of spacetime, gravitational force with another fundamental particle, and electrostatic force with another fundamental particle. This derivation comes from the properties of spacetime and the particle model. If I just proceed from first principles, I generate the electrostatic force if both particles had Planck charge rather than elementary charge e. In an earlier email, John W. considered this to be a defect. He said that I had missed the correct value by more than a factor of 100 (missed by 1/α). This is ironic because I was quite happy with this answer. I was calculation the force assuming a coupling constant of 1, not the electron’s force with a mysterious coupling constant of alpha (α). 

I believe that this is the first time that a model of a fundamental particle has been able to generate the gravitational force and the electrostatic force even assuming a coupling constant of 1. If you know of any other model which has passed this test, I would be interested in hearing about it.   

I have not mentioned it before, but my model also generates the strong force. The model also produces asymptotic freedom when quarks are bound together into hadrons and explains why the strong force increases as the separation distance is increased beyond the natural distance which produces asymptotic freedom. (all in the book.)

On another point, I believe that any model of particles that does not include waves which modulate the rate of time will never be able to generate either curved spacetime or the gravitational force. It is my understanding that Chandra’s CTF model only involves the 3 spatial dimensions without involving time. If he introduces time into his model, then my model and his model would be very close.

Finally, I object to characterizing an electron as being a confined photon. I believe that a photon and an electron are both made of the same fundamental building block. Therefore photons can be converted to electron/positron pairs and vice versa. They are closely related, but saying that an electron is an oscillating confined photon implies that a photon is the fundamental building block of the universe or at least particles. It also implies that we will never be able to understand an electric field, a magnetic field or a charge in terms of a distortion of a more fundamental component. 

I explain all of these in terms of a distortion of energetic spacetime. I claim that an electric field, a magnetic field and even a gravitational field have both an oscillating component and a non-oscillating component.   I give equations for these in the book. I show that the oscillating component gives the correct energy density to the electric and magnetic field. I also propose that a gravitational field has an energy density. I combine this with the energy of the spacetime field and show how the interaction generates a black hole when the energy density of the gravitational field at a particular frequency matches the energy density of spacetime at that frequency.

While I have finished this most recent revision of the book, it has not been loaded onto the website yet. There is a problem with the website that is preventing new material from being loaded onto the website. This problem is being worked on by one of my sons and should be fixed in a few days.

John M.

-----Original Message-----
 From: "Andrew Meulenberg" <[ mules333 at gmail.com ]( mailto:mules333 at gmail.com )>
 Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:57am
 To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <[ general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org ]( mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org )>
 Cc: "Mary Fletcher" <[ marycfletcher at gmail.com ]( mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com )>
 Subject: [General] Questionnaire

Dear Folks,
We have 4 contributors so far. It is very illuminating. I hope that at some point we can get convergence on at least some of the questions. John W. has added a question that everyone can add to the end of the list:

QUESTION 14: By what mechanism is the electron confined?
I do not have time to answer the good comments in the individual emails right now (wife and premature twins, Grant and Remington, are in the hospital and all doing well). However, I hope to have time at the Conference to do so in person for those present.
I will not be arriving until 8:16PM on Sunday evening, so I cannot join the group (where ever) until about 9PM. Please do not wait until then to get started. I will be leaving Friday evening.

My time and schedule are somewhat constrained by that of Bob Hudgins and Mary Fletcher, who will arrive earlier in the day. We are planning on renting a car and staying at a motel in South Bay where the rates are more reasonable. if anyone else is doing something similar, please let me know.

Best to all,

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150801/c65bdd9c/attachment.htm>