[General] Spacetime Analysis

[John Williamson]

 Dear John,
You are welcome, but I am not sure this has been (or is being!) is the most productive use of my time. Every second I spend helping you is a second I cannot spend working on my own theory. Forgive my impudence, but, to be direct I think that it is far more advanced than your own. We all think our own stuff is the most important thing, of course, so I could well be wrong. From my perspective, however, I am now engaged in “helping” so many others that it is eating into too much time for things I, personally, think are more important. So, I will respond this time , again with pages of stuff on your model, but that is going to be it for the time being without reciprocal respect.

The main problem I have is that – imagine I dropped everything and worked full time on helping you to develop a John M-John W model. It would, indeed, be more advanced, make yet more connections, and be even more difficult for others to refute easily – but under most circumstances, it would not lead to a derivation of most of the major theories of physics as they stand. I do not see such an approach going anywhere. Sorry. Besides, my consultancy rates (to external industries) are a thousand (pounds) an hour. Even then I am selective on what I take on.  I have, so far, put lots of (free!) time into your work, with virtually no return. Good job I do not give a shit about money so forget this for the moment: to business ….
You put in, for example, “angular momentum” but this is over and above any underyling notion of your supermassive spacetime elements “rotating”. You put in charge. You put in G, you put in Planck’s constant. You have vibrations – but these are not consistent (they are zillions of orders of magnitude too small) with the physical size of the vibrations observed in experiment, measured in fields in the lab or expressed in quantum mechanics. You reject the whole notion of QED’s basis – virtual particle exchange, out of hand – despite the fact that this is pretty much the only quantitative basis we had for understand the fine structure of spectra, till now. In developing the model one makes a connection or two – it would reveal, like a good detective, some weaknesses of the present state of affairs – but ultimately – in adopting it – one would have no physics left with which to underpin it. Not good!
Of course, there is one scenario I can imagine where this would not be the case. We discuss this and end up with my own starting point, again with “only space-time” and energy. This approach also derives Maxwell theory and some of the starting points for the other major theories. Unfortuntely , one would not have a joint theory, only mine.
Now I am very  pleased that you accept constructive criticism, as I do, as help. You constructively criticised John Hodge’s work in a short paragraph (which contained some important points). I like his boldness too, though I do not agree completely with him either (sorry John!). You have still not said anything at all about mine. Is it, in your view, quite wrong? Perfectly correct? Completely and utterly irrelevant? Please give: do not just take!
Anyway, comments follow below … in red

John W.

I really want to thank you for engaging me.  This has pushed me to develop new insights and proofs. Since this email has some equations, it is duplicated in the attached PDF.

Thanks: I appreciate the pdf’s – otherwise things appear as empty boxes in crap software.

This email is going to primarily deal with proving that spacetime has a tremendous quantum mechanical energy density which fills the universe and is responsible for all particles, fields and forces.

Briefly: energy that does not act as “energy” is not energy.

However, before I launch into that, I want to comment on a part of your response. You said, “You go on to ascribe relations between the gravitational and electromagnetic forces to these excitations, and note that there is a relationship between these forces at some particular length scale…. – both the electromagnetic and Gravitational forces are inverse square. This means it is easy to find a relation between their coupling constants at ALL length scales. Just divide one force by the other. This leaves a dimensionless relationship between them which is just a big (or a small) number..

Your key points are not correct.  It is true that the equation  Fg = FE2   assumes a particular length scale, but the following equations achieve arbitrary separation distance by using the dimensionless number N which is the separation distance expressed as the number of reduced Compton wavelengths.

The reduced Compton wavelength contains the (inverse) mass. You are just putting this factor in in a different way. This is just another “postulate” on top of postulates. No extra content.



It is also possible to test the validity of your statement,  “It is easy to find a relation between their coupling constants at ALL length scales. Just divide one force by the other. This leaves a dimensionless relationship between them which is just a big (or a small) number.”  We will assume two hypothetical particles each with mass m and Planck charge qp.  The gravitational force Fg and the electrostatic force FE are given below.  Then as you suggest we divide Fg by FE.






Therefore, the ratio Fg/FE is dimensionless, but it is not “just a big (or a small) number” as you suggest.  This ratio contains an m2 term which means that it is not a constant.

Exactly. So? This is not an unknown fact.

In fact, this illustrates why a relationship between these two forces is so difficult to find.  The gravitational force scales with mass/energy and the electrostatic force does not.  A muon has the same charge (same force) as an electron even though a muon has 207 times more mass/energy.

The generally accepted model of the transfer of the electromagnetic force is virtual photon messenger particles.  Gravity is usually considered to be either a purely geometric effect or transferred by gravitons.  Suppose that we compare a force transferred by virtual photons and a different force transferred by either gravitons or the geometry of space.  No one has postulated a fundamental relationship between virtual photons and either gravitons or the geometry of space.

Not so. Martin and I have. Decades ago. I have talked about it in the past. Not published a paper on it granted … Taking too much time to do other things – the day job, children, helping other folk understand stuff …

Therefore, if these models are correct, there should not be any fundamental relationship between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force. Einstein worked for 30 years and he did not find any fundamental relationship.  This convinced many scientists that there was no fundamental relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force.

This is true.

Now suppose that a new theory comes along that proposes that all particles are rotating quantized waves existing in a sea of spacetime dipole waves.

In your model it is not the fundamental stuff you are proposing that rotates, but something else – yet another metalayer. Stuff of the energy density you propose rotating with the scale of the wavelength at the fundamental frequencies it possesses would have huge (many order of magnitudes more energy than the entire mass energy of the universe) energies.

This sea of waves is finite and therefore has boundary conditions. This means that new waves which propagate in this medium similar to sound waves propagating in a sea of small amplitude waves should show some distortion. A perfect sine wave would become a distorted sine wave which can be expressed as a linear term and a nonlinear term.  The ratio between the linear and nonlinear terms to a first approximation should scale with amplitude squared.

True enough. But this is a theory and its non-linear extension which you only talk about but propose no actual equations for. In contrast to this – I have. Both the linear part – and the non-linear (force) part.

The prediction emerges that there should actually be a connection between the electrostatic force (the linear term) and the gravitational force (the nonlinear term).

No –  my understanding is that gravitational waves also add linearly (I could be wrong here – am I? – John M. Viv? Anyone?).

Furthermore, the connection should scale with amplitude squared and scale proportional to the size of the rotating particle.  This means that the separation distance between two particles should be expressed using the particle’s natural unit of length which is the rotational radius (λc).  A simple calculation shows that these are correct predictions. Eureka!

Look- I happen to agree with (some aspects of) this bit. You have a discrete factor – one per type of particle. I have a continuous factor, R in eq 21. Which gives the relative scale factor for all particles – and even the same “particle” in different frames.

Spacetime Field:   Now I am going to give the promised proof that spacetime is a sea of quantum mechanical small amplitude waves also known as dipole waves in spacetime These waves are a different form of energy than fermions and bosons.  They are the basis of what we have been calling fields. What is a field? John Gribbin[1]<https://mail.campus.gla.ac.uk/owa/#_ftn1> describes a field as a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. John Archibald Wheeler says a field “occupies space - It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.”[2]<https://mail.campus.gla.ac.uk/owa/#_ftn2> Richard Feynman said, "A field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have".[3]<https://mail.campus.gla.ac.uk/owa/#_ftn3> Albert Einstein equated “field” to “physical space”.

You are quoting authority. But, famously (at least in one case), these authorities themselves professed to not understanding field.

Don’t quote what you think other people think . Think! Here goes …

Gribbin is being a bit simple here. Proof: take the field of light – transform continuously to a co-moving frame. The field shrinks, reaching exactly zero as the velocities match. So in which frame is the value of the “field” to be defined when there exists, not only a different value in each frame, but one such that it goes to precisely zero in one of them.  Gribbin is correct to a point– that a field has a value measured in any frame – but that is with respect to a division of quantities in that specific frame. It is not an absolute quantity. Field is not (in this sense) fundamental. It is not a little box (as he implies), but a division of a length by a time. See, further, the discussion between me and Al.

Wheeler says field “occupies space”. Yes. He does not mean it “displaces space” though. What is different about this to my concept of vot, then, as a kind of energy existing as a disturbance in space and time?

Feynmann. Dear old excellent Feynmann. Famously, publically, on video– had not got a clue just what field was. At least he was honest , typically. The extract above sums it up (and contradicts Gribbin). Yes it does have (well defined) energy, yes it does have (well defined)  momentum. Then there is this little thing called the uncertainty relation. Know the energy? No idea about the time. Know the momentum? No idea about the position There you go. A mouth full of teeth. Nothing more to say. Would have loved to have spent a few hours with Feynmann over a beer on this. He so wanted to know what the fields really were …

Then we have everybodies favourite. Albert. Closest, as usual. Feel that table? Are you feeling space?  .. No, that is what your hand went through to get to the table. You are feeling (the interference of) field. The three dimensions of field, manifest as an (apparently) 3D table. PHYSICAL space indeed. Einstein, though, was far too subtle to equate field to space, per-se. He knew better than anyone up till then – and most since – just exactly what the underlying nature of space, time (and field) were. This does not mean that he thought the last word on it. He tried for 30 years to get a theory of a purely electromagnetic electron (as you mention) and died still wondering. Even Einstein did not knot everything! Again – would have loved to pass time with him – but he died before I was born…

The standard model is a field theory with about 17 named fields.  Fundamental particles are described as “excitations” of their associated “fields”.  Therefore, even the standard model has the vacuum filled with fields.

Yes, and we have to explain these, get to their starting points, not destroy everything and try to start again.

Since particles are excitations of fields, and fields exert forces, it might be said that all particles and forces are derived from fields.  In other words, the standard model implies that “the universe is only fields.”

Yes, but it does not explain what any of the fields are. Turtles all the way down. Look at my stuff will you?

  It is a short jump from this to “the universe is only spacetime”.

Yes, but only if you can explain what the “fields” are. Fields are not fundamental. One needs to derive them. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. So: am I wrong?

There is no doubt that spacetime is not just an empty void.  The Lamb shift, Casimir effect, the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, spontaneous emission, virtual particle pair production and vacuum polarization all require that the vacuum has physical properties that are inconsistent with an empty void.  Zero point energy and QED calculations all require that the vacuum has an energy.

No, not really. As I said before, you do not actually get any of  this (though you do get an awful lot!). The actual CALCULATIONS are with virtual particles – which you reject. The calculated corrections are very small (order alpha squared) not large as you seem to think. The vacuum has an “energy” only in the theory, not in observed reality.

 An empty void would not have a universal speed limit or would not have other constants such as G, ħ, and εo.

Yes but you simply put these in. You do not get them out.

 However, there is also numerous reasons to believe that the vacuum does not have energy in excess of about 10-9 J/m3 which is associated with dark energy.

Right. So does it or does it not? Make up your mind!

Matter can propagate at any speed less than the speed of light without encountering any friction or drag. Also general relativity teaches that energy in any form creates gravity.  These two points will be addressed later.

Why not now? I hate wasting time! I am not a slow person. Hit me!

General relativity and specifically our knowledge of the properties of gravitational waves gives a great deal of insights into the properties of spacetime.  Gravitational waves are something like transverse acoustic waves that are propagating in the medium of spacetime.

Analogies nearly always confuse if you try to take them too literally.

 The same way that it is possible to obtain information about the properties as an acoustic medium by characterizing its acoustic properties, so also information about the underlying properties of spacetime can be obtained by studying gravitational wave equations and characteristics.  Even though gravitational waves have not been directly detected, they have been indirectly observed.  The Hulse–Taylor binary star system has been observed for over 30 years.  Over that time it has been observed to loose energy because it is radiating gravitational waves.  The predicted energy loss to gravitational waves agrees with the observed energy loss to an accuracy of about 0.2%.  Currently this binary star system is radiating about 1025 watts of gravitational wave power.

Spacetime acts like a very stiff elastic medium.  Very high powers can be transmitted by waves which produce a very small distortion of spacetime.  The impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G ≈ 4x1035 kg/s is known to experts working on gravitational wave detection, but this important constant is virtually unknown outside this field. If both stars of a binary star system have the same mass and are separated by R, then the equation for the radiated power is simplified to:



For example, the Hulse–Taylor binary system is radiating about 1025 watts of gravitational waves.  However, the highest power gravitational waves when two of the same size black holes are about to merge (R ≈ Rs = Gm/c2).  The power radiated into gravitational waves the instant before the two black holes merge is:

  ≈  Planck power ≈1052 watts

If you calculate the maximum energy density (U) of the gravitational waves at this instant, it is:
U = k Fp/Rs2.
For example, if the two of the same size black holes were about to merge to form a larger black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of 10 km, then for an instant the energy density of the gravitational waves leaving the new event horizon would be a numerical constant times 1042 J/m3. Clearly, spacetime can possess tremendous energy density if gravitational waves are present.

There is quite a lot of nonsense talked about black holes and this is a case in point. Not so. Black holes do not have a solid boundary, since they alter the local properties of space and time. Proof: the observable universe is also a “black hole” in that light can not escape from it (by definition). Look around you? Feel uncomfortable? Squashed? No? Time to think clearly!

Think about the physics of this.  Somehow spacetime is able to possess observable energy density in excess of 1040 J/m3

No, these densities have not been observed. They are three orders past the degeneracy limit of neutron star collapse! Think? Ok!

when it is being modulated by gravitational waves.  Is it reasonable to think that spacetime is an empty void when there are no gravitational waves present?  What is being accelerated and compressed by the gravitational waves?

Right!

The proposed answer is that spacetime always possesses quantum mechanical energy in the form of Planck length/time displacements of spacetime predominantly at Planck frequency.

Wrong! Why?

 These small amplitude waves have no angular momentum and are the most perfect superfluid possible.  They are undetectable to us as individual waves, but their presence gives spacetime its ability to propagate gravitational waves.  The gravitational waves slightly distort the dipole spacetime waves causing the frequency to slightly shift.  This gives spacetime its very still elasticity. The gravitational waves carry angular momentum, therefore the modulation of this spacetime field energy also introduces angular momentum and a portion of the energy density becomes observable to us.

This is just words and questions. Just hand-waving. No answers. No equations.

Look, gravitation is a very interesting field (if you will pardon the pun), but it is far too small to allow elementary particles to confine themselves. You know this – you can do the sums.

In my Aether paper I do a calculation where I take a gravitational wave (Eq. 3) and calculate the implied energy density of the spacetime field.  Equation 5 from this paper (shown below) shows the result of this calculation. The energy density encountered by a gravitational wave with angular frequency ω or reduced wavelength λ is:

Ui = k

The symbol Ui is called “interactive energy density” because the energy density encountered by gravitational waves is frequency dependent. This is understandable because the fluctuations in spacetime are predominantly at Planck frequency.  Therefore, there is a frequency mismatch when a gravitational wave is at a lower frequency.  In particular, notice that the energy density of any size black hole is Ubh = k Fp/Rs2  (where Fp = c4/G) and the interactive energy density of spacetime is Ui = kFp/λ2.  A gravitational wave with reduced wavelength λ encounters the same energy density as a black hole when λ = Rs.  This is reasonable because a black hole forms when all the spacetime energy at a particular frequency range is commandeered by energy which possesses angular momentum.

The Aether paper also gives a numerical example of a gravitational wave with angular frequency of ω = 1 s-1 and intensity of 1 w/m2. Such a wave would distort the distance between points by about 10-18 meters/meter. Scientists normally just say that spacetime is a very stiff elastic medium and do not attempt to understand the underlying physics.  The example in the Aether paper shows that this gravitational wave is actually encountering interactive energy density of about 1027 J/m3 and is interacting with a volume of spacetime equal to λ3 so when λ = 3x108 m, then the wave is accelerating about 3x1052 Joules of dipole waves. These have inertia which then explains the small displacement produced by the gravitational wave.  This brief summary is incomplete, so to fully understand this point it is necessary to consult the Aether paper.

John, If you really understand things you should be able to explain them to your mother. I am not your mother. I may not be the most erudite mother on the planet, but I could at least talk to her. I have read the paper. Even so, you are not explaining this adequately to me. Your numbers seem way out of sense to me – and I am not going to easily accept that I am the stupidest mother on the planet.

Matter can propagate through the sea of dipole waves that fill spacetime because all fundamental particles are just units of quantized angular momentum propagating in the spacetime field.

This is not arising from your fundamental starting point. You have simply adopted it as an extra postulate (or am I wrong?). Why do you not simply start from here?

This is not a new wave being introduced into a volume such as a propagating gravitational wave or a propagating electromagnetic wave.  A fundamental particle is like a rotating vortex.

In some senses. This is just a simple statement of what Kelvin said and what I have been saying all along. – but it is not your underlying mass energy, these Plank-scale vibrations, that is rotating. Is it?

 It is only stable at certain frequencies as explained in the foundation paper and the book.

You have not explained why it is only stable at certain frequencies – only proposed that it is. This is not the same thing.

Also, the energy in the vacuum fluctuations does not create gravity.  Instead, this homogeneous distribution of waves is what is being distorted when matter is introduced into a volume.  It is possible to calculate how matter causes curved spacetime with this model.

Finally, the proposed charge conversion constant shows that photons also experience the same impedance (c3/G) as gravitational waves.  Photons impart quantized angular momentum to the dipole waves in spacetime which lack angular momentum and makes this energy observable.

How?

This makes the surprising prediction that there should be a maximum possible intensity for light with reduced wavelength λ.  The maximum allowed intensity is the intensity which equals the interactive energy density Ui = Fp/λ2 when the light is confined in the smallest possible volume which is a constant times λ3. The Foundation paper shows that this is a correct prediction because a black hole would form at this maximum allowed energy density for volume λ3.

You do not need any of your model to show this. It is simply obvious that at sufficient energy – over sufficiently short distance, one enters the conditions for a “black hole”. So what? This is anyway related to the Planck limit you put in to start with. Why the “surprise”?

In conclusion, both quantum mechanics and general relativity have many mysteries.  These mysteries become conceptually understandable when you adopt the perspective that spacetime is filled with small amplitude vacuum fluctuations which has quantifiable energy density.

Oh no they do not. The “mysteries” all simply remain. That is my point. You have gone through all of this – but have not actually “explained” the exclusion principle, the speed of light, the electron charge , the nature of half-integral spin, Planck’s constant the value of G, the value of c etc. etc. etc. You have not, from your starting postulates, derived any of the accepted theories either –just presumed they (some of them anyway) still operate – regardless of the lack of connection.  Don’t tell me – show me!

This is the basic building block of everything in the universe.  All that is necessary to make this energy observable is to introduce quantized angular momentum.  For example, this happens in particle accelerators.  As Nobel Laureate, Robert Laughlin explains it, “Large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”

More authority, but I know Laughlin, he was (and is) a leading light in my old field and I have helped him in the past. I know his theories, respect him hugely (of course) – but he is no god. What he says here is very nearly right – it is the clear view of a genius who has tried better than anyone else to make progress within a framework otherwise fundamentally inadequate to take things forwards.

It is precisely to underpin the idea of collective states of light and matter (and hence derive the starting points of Laughlin theory) that I’m trying to produce a THEORY which enables states in the FQHE regime and in high Tc superconductors to be understood at a deeper level than is possible at all otherwise. This is what needs to be done. One needs a (new) field theory. That is exactly what I am trying to do!

Please, do not just interact backwards on forwards on your own view as though there is nothing else of any conceivable value. Do not just take. Help me in return with putting some effort into your views on mine! You can do it. You are very smart (cheers!) and understand a lot (far more than most) about the current framework of physics. You communicate (and market your ideas),  brilliantly. Do not just take. Use your talents positively. Criticise! Help!

John M.

John W.


________________________________
From: John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:05 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles; John Williamson
Cc: pete at leathergoth.com; 'Nick Bailey'; 'Ariane Mandray'; 'Martin van der''; 'David Williamson'
Subject: Spacetime Analysis

John W.

I really want to thank you for engaging me.  This has pushed me to develop new insights and proofs. Since this email has some equations, it is duplicated in the attached PDF.

This email is going to primarily deal with proving that spacetime has a tremendous quantum mechanical energy density which fills the universe and is responsible for all particles, fields and forces.  However, before I launch into that, I want to comment on a part of your response. You said, “You go on to ascribe relations between the gravitational and electromagnetic forces to these excitations, and note that there is a relationship between these forces at some particular length scale…. – both the electromagnetic and Gravitational forces are inverse square. This means it is easy to find a relation between their coupling constants at ALL length scales. Just divide one force by the other. This leaves a dimensionless relationship between them which is just a big (or a small) number..

Your key points are not correct.  It is true that the equation  Fg = FE2   assumes a particular length scale, but the following equations achieve arbitrary separation distance by using the dimensionless number N which is the separation distance expressed as the number of reduced Compton wavelengths.

  [cid:image014.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]
[cid:image016.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]
It is also possible to test the validity of your statement,  “It is easy to find a relation between their coupling constants at ALL length scales. Just divide one force by the other. This leaves a dimensionless relationship between them which is just a big (or a small) number.”  We will assume two hypothetical particles each with mass m and Planck charge qp.  The gravitational force Fg and the electrostatic force FE are given below.  Then as you suggest we divide Fg by FE.

  [cid:image017.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]
  [cid:image019.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]

 [cid:image020.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]

Therefore, the ratio Fg/FE is dimensionless, but it is not “just a big (or a small) number” as you suggest.  This ratio contains an m2 term which means that it is not a constant. In fact, this illustrates why a relationship between these two forces is so difficult to find.  The gravitational force scales with mass/energy and the electrostatic force does not.  A muon has the same charge (same force) as an electron even though a muon has 207 times more mass/energy.

The generally accepted model of the transfer of the electromagnetic force is virtual photon messenger particles.  Gravity is usually considered to be either a purely geometric effect or transferred by gravitons.  Suppose that we compare a force transferred by virtual photons and a different force transferred by either gravitons or the geometry of space.  No one has postulated a fundamental relationship between virtual photons and either gravitons or the geometry of space. Therefore, if these models are correct, there should not be any fundamental relationship between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force. Einstein worked for 30 years and he did not find any fundamental relationship.  This convinced many scientists that there was no fundamental relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force.

Now suppose that a new theory comes along that proposes that all particles are rotating quantized waves existing in a sea of spacetime dipole waves.  This sea of waves is finite and therefore has boundary conditions. This means that new waves which propagate in this medium similar to sound waves propagating in a sea of small amplitude waves should show some distortion. A perfect sine wave would become a distorted sine wave which can be expressed as a linear term and a nonlinear term.  The ratio between the linear and nonlinear terms to a first approximation should scale with amplitude squared.  The prediction emerges that there should actually be a connection between the electrostatic force (the linear term) and the gravitational force (the nonlinear term).  Furthermore, the connection should scale with amplitude squared and scale proportional to the size of the rotating particle.  This means that the separation distance between two particles should be expressed using the particle’s natural unit of length which is the rotational radius (λc).  A simple calculation shows that these are correct predictions. Eureka!

Spacetime Field:   Now I am going to give the promised proof that spacetime is a sea of quantum mechanical small amplitude waves also known as dipole waves in spacetime These waves are a different form of energy than fermions and bosons.  They are the basis of what we have been calling fields. What is a field? John Gribbin[1] describes a field as a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. John Archibald Wheeler says a field “occupies space - It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.”[2] Richard Feynman said, "A field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have".[3] Albert Einstein equated “field” to “physical space”.

The standard model is a field theory with about 17 named fields.  Fundamental particles are described as “excitations” of their associated “fields”.  Therefore, even the standard model has the vacuum filled with fields.  Since particles are excitations of fields, and fields exert forces, it might be said that all particles and forces are derived from fields.  In other words, the standard model implies that “the universe is only fields.”  It is a short jump from this to “the universe is only spacetime”.
There is no doubt that spacetime is not just an empty void.  The Lamb shift, Casimir effect, the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, spontaneous emission, virtual particle pair production and vacuum polarization all require that the vacuum has physical properties that are inconsistent with an empty void.  Zero point energy and QED calculations all require that the vacuum has an energy.    An empty void would not have a universal speed limit or would not have other constants such as G, ħ, and εo.  However, there is also numerous reasons to believe that the vacuum does not have energy in excess of about 10-9 J/m3 which is associated with dark energy.  Matter can propagate at any speed less than the speed of light without encountering any friction or drag. Also general relativity teaches that energy in any form creates gravity.  These two points will be addressed later.

General relativity and specifically our knowledge of the properties of gravitational waves gives a great deal of insights into the properties of spacetime.  Gravitational waves are something like transverse acoustic waves that are propagating in the medium of spacetime.  The same way that it is possible to obtain information about the properties as an acoustic medium by characterizing its acoustic properties, so also information about the underlying properties of spacetime can be obtained by studying gravitational wave equations and characteristics.  Even though gravitational waves have not been directly detected, they have been indirectly observed.  The Hulse–Taylor binary star system has been observed for over 30 years.  Over that time it has been observed to loose energy because it is radiating gravitational waves.  The predicted energy loss to gravitational waves agrees with the observed energy loss to an accuracy of about 0.2%.  Currently this binary star system is radiating about 1025 watts of gravitational wave power.

Spacetime acts like a very stiff elastic medium.  Very high powers can be transmitted by waves which produce a very small distortion of spacetime.  The impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G ≈ 4x1035 kg/s is known to experts working on gravitational wave detection, but this important constant is virtually unknown outside this field. If both stars of a binary star system have the same mass and are separated by R, then the equation for the radiated power is simplified to:

  [cid:image021.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]

For example, the Hulse–Taylor binary system is radiating about 1025 watts of gravitational waves.  However, the highest power gravitational waves when two of the same size black holes are about to merge (R ≈ Rs = Gm/c2).  The power radiated into gravitational waves the instant before the two black holes merge is:

[cid:image023.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]  ≈  Planck power ≈1052 watts

If you calculate the maximum energy density (U) of the gravitational waves at this instant, it is:
U = k Fp/Rs2.
For example, if the two of the same size black holes were about to merge to form a larger black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of 10 km, then for an instant the energy density of the gravitational waves leaving the new event horizon would be a numerical constant times 1042 J/m3. Clearly, spacetime can possess tremendous energy density if gravitational waves are present.

Think about the physics of this.  Somehow spacetime is able to possess observable energy density in excess of 1040 J/m3 when it is being modulated by gravitational waves.  Is it reasonable to think that spacetime is an empty void when there are no gravitational waves present?  What is being accelerated and compressed by the gravitational waves? The proposed answer is that spacetime always possesses quantum mechanical energy in the form of Planck length/time displacements of spacetime predominantly at Planck frequency.  These small amplitude waves have no angular momentum and are the most perfect superfluid possible.  They are undetectable to us as individual waves, but their presence gives spacetime its ability to propagate gravitational waves.  The gravitational waves slightly distort the dipole spacetime waves causing the frequency to slightly shift.  This gives spacetime its very still elasticity. The gravitational waves carry angular momentum, therefore the modulation of this spacetime field energy also introduces angular momentum and a portion of the energy density becomes observable to us.

In my Aether paper I do a calculation where I take a gravitational wave (Eq. 3) and calculate the implied energy density of the spacetime field.  Equation 5 from this paper (shown below) shows the result of this calculation. The energy density encountered by a gravitational wave with angular frequency ω or reduced wavelength λ is:

Ui = k [cid:image024.png at 01D12D02.1226EB20]

The symbol Ui is called “interactive energy density” because the energy density encountered by gravitational waves is frequency dependent. This is understandable because the fluctuations in spacetime are predominantly at Planck frequency.  Therefore, there is a frequency mismatch when a gravitational wave is at a lower frequency.  In particular, notice that the energy density of any size black hole is Ubh = k Fp/Rs2  (where Fp = c4/G) and the interactive energy density of spacetime is Ui = kFp/λ2.  A gravitational wave with reduced wavelength λ encounters the same energy density as a black hole when λ = Rs.  This is reasonable because a black hole forms when all the spacetime energy at a particular frequency range is commandeered by energy which possesses angular momentum.

The Aether paper also gives a numerical example of a gravitational wave with angular frequency of ω = 1 s-1 and intensity of 1 w/m2. Such a wave would distort the distance between points by about 10-18 meters/meter. Scientists normally just say that spacetime is a very stiff elastic medium and do not attempt to understand the underlying physics.  The example in the Aether paper shows that this gravitational wave is actually encountering interactive energy density of about 1027 J/m3 and is interacting with a volume of spacetime equal to λ3 so when λ = 3x108 m, then the wave is accelerating about 3x1052 Joules of dipole waves. These have inertia which then explains the small displacement produced by the gravitational wave.  This brief summary is incomplete, so to fully understand this point it is necessary to consult the Aether paper.

Matter can propagate through the sea of dipole waves that fill spacetime because all fundamental particles are just units of quantized angular momentum propagating in the spacetime field.  This is not a new wave being introduced into a volume such as a propagating gravitational wave or a propagating electromagnetic wave.  A fundamental particle is like a rotating vortex.  It is only stable at certain frequencies as explained in the foundation paper and the book. Also, the energy in the vacuum fluctuations does not create gravity.  Instead, this homogeneous distribution of waves is what is being distorted when matter is introduced into a volume.  It is possible to calculate how matter causes curved spacetime with this model.

Finally, the proposed charge conversion constant shows that photons also experience the same impedance (c3/G) as gravitational waves.  Photons impart quantized angular momentum to the dipole waves in spacetime which lack angular momentum and makes this energy observable.  This makes the surprising prediction that there should be a maximum possible intensity for light with reduced wavelength λ.  The maximum allowed intensity is the intensity which equals the interactive energy density Ui = Fp/λ2 when the light is confined in the smallest possible volume which is a constant times λ3. The Foundation paper shows that this is a correct prediction because a black hole would form at this maximum allowed energy density for volume λ3.

In conclusion, both quantum mechanics and general relativity have many mysteries.  These mysteries become conceptually understandable when you adopt the perspective that spacetime is filled with small amplitude vacuum fluctuations which has quantifiable energy density. This is the basic building block of everything in the universe.  All that is necessary to make this energy observable is to introduce quantized angular momentum.  For example, this happens in particle accelerators.  As Nobel Laureate, Robert Laughlin explains it, “Large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”

John M.


________________________________

[1] John Gribbin (1998). Q is for Quantum: Particle Physics from A to Z. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 138. ISBN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number> 0-297-81752-3<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-297-81752-3>

[2] John Archibald Wheeler (1998). Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics. London: Norton. p. 163.

[3] Richard P. Feynman (1963). Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Volume 1. Caltech. pp. 2–4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 768 bytes
Desc: image014.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image016.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1163 bytes
Desc: image016.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image017.png
Type: image/png
Size: 691 bytes
Desc: image017.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image019.png
Type: image/png
Size: 983 bytes
Desc: image019.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image020.png
Type: image/png
Size: 830 bytes
Desc: image020.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image021.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1023 bytes
Desc: image021.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image023.png
Type: image/png
Size: 718 bytes
Desc: image023.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image024.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1020 bytes
Desc: image024.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151204/f7ee298d/attachment-0007.png>