[General] de Broglie Wave Computer Simulation

[John Macken]

David,

 

I do not have enough time to answer all your questions, but I will go down the list until I have to go to bed.

 

Planck Units:  Nature operates using Planck units.  Why does Einstein’s field equation contain c4/G (Planck force Fp)?  Because this is the strongest force which nature can exert on a single entity.  This is a boundary condition for all forces.  Therefore the nonlinearity associated with force must reference this limit.  The energy in a black hole is Ebh = FpRs.  Planck length Lp is the minimum distance that can be physically measured (device independent).  Why is this?  Because spacetime itself is modulating the distance between two points by ±Lp.  This is the background “noise” of the universe. The minimum unit of time that can be measured (device independent) is Planck time.  Flat spacetime is modulating the rate of time by ±Tp.  My “foundation” paper has references which support these statements.  

 

I am not going to spend more time proving this point, but Planck units are the units of spacetime.  When I see everything as made out of spacetime, then it is obvious that everything gets simple when you express it in Planck units.  Here is a chart from my book (page 6-8).  I will not explain all the meaning of the symbols. You can get that from the book.  What I want you to see is one example of how all the characteristics of an electron are related to the same number when the characteristic is expressed in dimensionless Planck units.  You can look at any one example and claim that the relationship is trivial.  However, I can do the same thing with forces.  The electron’s gravitational force and its electrostatic force are related to its energy when forces are expressed in dimensionless Planck units and a correction is made for the electron’s coupling constant. 

 

Electron’s Characteristics

λc = ħ/mc = c/ωc = 3.8616 × 10-13 m           Compton radius (rotar radius)

ωc = mc2/ħ = c/λc =7.7634 × 1020 s-1               Compton angular frequency

Ei = mc2 = ħωc = 8.1871 × 10-14 J                   internal energy

Pc = Ei ωc = ωc2ħ = 6.356 × 107 w                  circulating power (explained below)

                                   Electron’s Characteristics in Dimensionless Planck Units

Aβ =                                                        = 4.185 x 10-23    strain amplitude

Lp/λc = 1.616 × 10-35/3.8616 × 10-13                = 4.185 x 10-23    Compton radius (rotar radius)

ωcTp = ωc/ωp = 7.76 × 1020/1.855 × 1043      = 4.185 x 10-23   Compton frequency

m/mp = 9.109 × 10-31/2.176 × 10-8                = 4.185 x 10-23    mass

Ei/Ep = 8.187 × 10-14/1.956 × 109                   = 4.185 x 10-23    energy

 = (6.76 × 10-58/3.86 × 10-13)1/2          = 4.185 x 10-23    Schwarzschild radius

 = (6.36 × 107/3.63 × 1052)1/2           = 4.185 x 10-23    circulating power

(Uq/Up)1/4 = (1.42 × 1024/4.64 × 10113)1/4   = 4.185 x 10-23    energy density

(Aq/Ap)1/2 = (9.74 × 106/5.58 × 1051)1/2       = 4.185 x 10-23    grav acceleration

(gq/Ap)1/3 = (4.08 × 10-16/5.58 × 1051)1/3     = 4.185 x 10-23    gravitational acceleration at λc

 

You ask “Does this model predict anything beyond the Standard Model and QED?”  The answer is a resounding yes. I have numerous times talked about the relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force.  This is completely new.  The standard model does not even recognize gravity as a true force.  Physicists are speculating why gravity is so weak.  One answer is that gravity is taking place in another dimension and is only weakly leaking through to our observable universe.  I show that the weakness of gravity is due to a simple difference in exponents.

 

Another prediction is that I can give the exact displacement of spacetime produced by an electric field and a photon.  There was a time that I first realized that if photons and electric fields were producing a distortion of spacetime, there should be such a thing as a maximum energy density that a particular wavelength of light could achieve.  There should also be such a thing as a maximum voltage that a vacuum capacitor could hold.  I was quite concerned by these predictions since they did not seem reasonable.  I was astounded when I calculated these maximums and discovered that they both corresponded to the condition which would produce a black hole. The predictions were correct! What I thought was going to be a flaw turned out to be a fantastic support.  The last few pages of the foundation paper gives more details.

 

There are actually many predictions, but I will tell you about another one that is in the foundation paper and in the book.  I developed the proposed “charge conversion constant” which converts Coulomb into a displacement of spacetime.  This was also a prediction based on the properties of spacetime.  When I tested this radical idea I discovered that among other things the Coulomb force constant (1/4πεo) converted to Planck force Fp = c4/G.  This is extremely reasonable because it fits perfectly with the importance of Planck force.  When I converted the impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω it converted to the impedance of spacetime. Zs = c3/G ≈ 4x1035 kg/s.  This one truly astounded me first because I was not expecting it, but more important because of the implications. The impedance of spacetime is derived from gravitational wave equations.  Gravitational waves are propagating in the medium of spacetime and the impedance they experience is c3/G.  Now I discover that light is experiencing exactly the same impedance.  This means that light is not a packet of energy propagating through the empty void of space.  Light is a quantized wave propagating in the medium of spacetime.  Light experiences the impedance of spacetime.   The implication is that the spacetime field is the new aether.  I know that this sounds like I am saying that the spacetime field has all the disproven properties previously attributed to the aether.  However, I am not saying that.  I show how the properties of the spacetime field produce all the properties of light that have been experimentally proven to be correct.  Obviously you will never hear the word aether and Standard Model used in the same sentence. 

 

I have one more for now.  One of the main reasons that photons became thought of as particles and not waves was the Compton Effect.  The scattering of x-rays by electrons seems to require a particle explanation.  However, as I discuss in my book, there is a wave-based explanation for Compton scattering.  I point out that this explanation is actually superior to the particle-based explanation.  The reason is that the particle explanation implies that the electron is accelerated through intermediate velocities before it reaches its final scattering velocity.  The wave based explanation shows that the electron does not undergo an acceleration through intermediate velocities.  The wave model of a stationary electron gives way to the wave model of a moving electron. This has to be the right model.  Also the transfer of quantized angular momentum must be between waves.  A carbon monoxide molecule does not change its rotation frequency gradually when it emits a photon and removes ħ of angular momentum.  The wave model of a rotating molecule changes from one rotation frequency to another without any intermediate frequencies.  (That last point about molecules was just invented as part of this explanation.)

 

I have many other predictions and experiences which prove to me that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together perfectly using the model that I am proposing.  It is easy to daily come up with new insights.  I am positive that this is the correct model of the universe.  Someday it will be taught in high school because it is so simple and easy to understand.   

 

John M.

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 6:26 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] de Broglie Wave Computer Simulation

 

John M

 

So I've been trying to drill down into your model. Other than getting stuck on the use of Planck units which I finally just stipulated that is the way it's going to be, here is IMHO the key question for any electron model.

 

Does this model predict anything beyond the Standard Model and QED?

 

Perhaps the difficulty is with me, but I do have a bit of difficulty  getting on the same page sometimes. Here are some detailed comments

 

>both electric fields and gravitational fields are the result of fundamental particles generating standing waves in the “spacetime field”.

 

When you speak of fundamental particles, are you speaking of elementary particles and using the standard model sans graviton,  are you suggesting some interaction with spacetime beyond just relativistic, or some other combination of interaction.

 

The connection with Compton waves and the force is still vague.

 

Is the spherical vortex just an oversimplification of the various toroid and knot models that others have suggested?

 

The Schwarzschild radius is satisfied. The  "black hole limitations" as applied to the electron are not clear. Could you please summarize them?

 

The whole Planck units part is disjoint IMHO. Planck units do not close. etc....we've been down this path. Sorry for bringing it up again.

 

Also, you may want to place a warning on those videos which could mesmerize someone, or worse,  if you don't hypnotize someone, these videos will be misused and abused. A simple picture with labels would be an improvement. A nice focus on just the near field or a simple equation to obtain the conceptually might do instead of the dangerous overkill IMHO.

 

While I find the theory interesting, I have difficulty finding the essence and beauty of the theory is not clear and concise at least to me.

 

Is there a slide show on Rotar theory?

 

Best Regards,

 

David

 


  _____  


From: John Macken <john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com> >
To: Nature of Light and Particles <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> > 
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 5:17 PM
Subject: [General] de Broglie Wave Computer Simulation

 

Hello Everyone,

 

My son and I have put together a video of the various computer simulations we have made of my electron model. It is about one minute long and shows a total of 6 separate computer simulations.  Since there is currently no narration, it is necessary for me to provide a written explanation and two other attached figures. I suggest that you first look at the video once before I give an explanation.  Go to the following link and you will see: “deBrogliewave simulation”  Click on:  “ > Play all”.

 

To view the video full screen I suggest that after starting the video, you immediately click on the icon on the bottom right of the video which enlarges the video to full screen. The screen will go black for a few seconds between the different simulations.  To eliminate the “full screen”, press the “escape” button at any time.  Here is the link:

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGh99BOR2axiAtabtPBLcPJD7m74zzV6P

 

Before I give an explanation of the video, I want to first reference my last post from Monday, June 1 under the general title “photons”.  In that post I gave a series of equations which connected the electrostatic force to the gravitational force.  I used these equations to prove that the electrostatic force has a mathematical and physical connection to the gravitational force. The connection was originally a prediction of a wave-based model of fundamental particles, fields and forces.  In the post I made the point that the equations supported my contention that both electric fields and gravitational fields are the result of fundamental particles generating standing waves in the “spacetime field”.  I have simple equations for the amplitude, frequency, displacement of spacetime and strain in spacetime produced by these waves.  These equations give the correct gravitational force between fundamental particles and they give the correct electrostatic force if you assume either Planck charge or assume charge e and the fine structure constant as a coupling constant.  

 

John W. has just written a long comment that included an explanation of the successes of QED, but he never did comment on whether my equations implied that the electrostatic force was transferred by Compton frequency waves. These waves make both the electrostatic force and the gravitational force between particles fundamentally scale with the number of reduced Compton wavelengths.  The connection between these forces can only be seen when this connection is acknowledged.  

 

No one else in the group has even commented.  The response has been to merely go back to discussions of particle models which cannot generate the force relationships that I prove must exist.  

 

I claim that virtual photon messenger particles have to be eliminated from any physical model and placed in the same trash bin as other discarded scientific ideas such as the phlogiston theory.    The replacement is waves in spacetime at a particle’s Compton frequency.  These waves generate the correct forces, correct de Broglie waves, correct electric and magnetic field energy density, correct black hole limitations, correct particle energy (given resonance frequencies of unknown origin), etc. Even QED will be improved when it makes this transition to waves because it will then be able to generate gravity.

 

As an introduction to the computer simulations, I want to first explain the 5 attached figures. All of these figures should be visualized as existing in the “spacetime field”.  This is the single field that is the quantum mechanical basis of spacetime.  It consists of a sea of dipole waves in spacetime which are continuously slightly distorting both space by ±Lp (Planck length) and distorting the rate of time by ±Tp (Planck time).  These waves are primarily at Planck frequency.  They lack angular momentum and have the properties of a perfect superfluid.  Quantized angular momentum existing since the Big Bang is also present in the spacetime field, but it is quarantined into isolated rotating spherical vortices.  Each spherical vortex possesses ½ ħ of angular momentum and is a fermion.  Photons are similar, but not discussed here.  All of the overlapping fields of the standard model are replaced by the single spacetime field which has various resonances associated with the particles of the standard model.   

Figure 5-1 is a crude representation of the heart of my particle model (rotar model).  It is a dipole wave in spacetime which is one Compton wavelength in circumference.  Imagine a linear wave which is distorting the rate of time and proper volume.  A sine wave maximum can represent a fast rate of time and the sine wave minimum is the slow rate of time.  Now imagine this wave being only one cycle long and bent into a circle, one Compton wavelength in circumference.  That is what is being depicted in figure 5-1.  The lobes depicted in 5-1 have known amplitudes which form the basis of all force calculations.  The lobes also produce a spatial distortion of ± Lp.  It is possible to talk about either the temporal or spatial properties and imply the other.  

 

Even though there is mention of Planck length and Planck time this is not the same as “Planck scale”.  That term applies to the most energetic conditions possible.  An electron can distort spacetime by Planck length and yet not have Planck frequency.  Also the strain of spacetime produced by an electron is vastly less than the strain produced by a hypothetical Planck mass.  Therefore, an electron is not Planck scale.  Only the energy density of the spacetime field might be called “Planck scale”, but that energy is not directly observable.  The virtual particle pairs that are continuously coming into existence and going out of existence are another manifestation of the energetic vacuum.  

 

Figure 5-2 is similar to figure 5-1 except that figure 5-2 is emphasizing the rotating rate of time gradient that is created by the two different rates of time in the lobes. This rate of time gradient has energy density similar to the energy density of the lobes.  This lowers the angular momentum of the rotating energy and allows it to achieve total angular momentum of ½ ħ.  

 

The previous two figures ignored what is happening external to the “rotar volume”.  The distortions in spacetime produced by the rotar are attempting to radiate away the energy.  For example, the fast time lobe produces a disturbance depicted by the solid Archimedes spiral in figure 10-9 and the dashed line produces the disturbance associated with the slow rate of time.  These can also be characterized as the lobe which produces an increase in volume and a lobe which produces a decrease in volume.  Note that a line drawn perpendicular to an Archimedes spiral does not project to the center of rotation. A perpendicular line is approximately tangent to the rotation circle that is one Compton wavelength is circumference.  The approximation is virtually perfect the greater the distance.  

 

Figure 10-2 shows an important point as to how this model achieves stability.  In the Huygens Principle, diffraction is explained with the concept that every wavefront is the source of new wavelets.  In Huygens’ original version it was simply postulated that only the forward hemisphere should be used.  Fresnel added that the sum of the amplitudes should be squared and Kirchhoff added an equation for the amplitude distribution which eliminated backwards propagation and also produced perfect simulation of diffraction. In Figure 5-2 it is postulated that the few stable and semi-stable particles which are known to exist have frequencies, amplitudes and other properties which achieve backwards propagation represented by the complete circles in figure 5-2.  This backwards propagation returns energy to the rotar and generates pressure which opposes the internal pressure associated with the rotar’s energy density propagating at the speed of light.  

 

Figure 10-7 shows the effect of incorporating both the forward propagating waves and the backwards propagating waves if the rotar is moving relative to an observer.  The relative motion produces a Doppler shift on both outgoing and incoming waves which produces a modulation envelope that we know as the particle’s de Broglie waves.  The characteristics of this modulation envelope perfectly matches the known characteristics of a moving particle’s de Broglie waves. 

 

With this introduction, it is possible to now explain the video. Since each video is short, it is useful to stop the motion by pressing the “pause” button or moving the slider at the bottom back to the beginning. 

 

The first of the 6 videos shows a stationary fundamental particle such as a stationary electron.  This video has 3 panels depicting different parts of the simulation.  The left and middle panels show rotating Archimedes spirals.  The blue regions represent space which has a slightly faster rate of time.  The yellow represent space with slightly slower rate of time.  The blue can also represent space which has slightly smaller volume than predicted by Euclidian geometry.  The yellow represents space with slightly larger volume than expected.  

 

Both spirals are rotating the same direction, but the left panel represents the outgoing wave and the middle panel represents the incoming wave.  These waves should be small amplitude near the outer edges and large amplitude near the center.  If this intensity was depicted accurately all but the center would almost disappear and it would be difficult to see the effects that are being illustrated.  Therefore, imagine the intensity decreasing with distance.  The right hand panel shows what happens when we combine the outgoing and incoming waves.  The spiral is lost and all we see is rotating equivalent of a “standing wave”.  

 

If we have two plane waves propagating in opposite directions, then a true standing wave is created.  When rotation is involved, then this is what is produced.  The wave never dies away, but any fixed point removed from the center experiences a sinusoidal increase and decrease in amplitude, the same as a fixed point in a standing wave created by two plane waves.  Also notice the center.  There are two spots, one blue and one yellow which are rotating around a central point.  This can be thought of as the rotar depicted in figure 5-1.  This is the region that is generating all the other waves surrounding it. Obviously the amplitude of this region should be much higher compared to the surrounding volume.

 

The second animation is a 3 D simulation of the “external volume” of the rotar model.  This shows the amplitude decreasing with distance.  Also the black null region that is prominent in the first video is merely the null between the portions protruding up and the portions protruding down.  To spot this null, it is necessary to look at the left hand animation and catch the relatively flat area extending radially away from the center as it quickly rotates by.  Also this figure is missing the central volume which is the rotar itself.  Some views of the left hand animation show a central hole.  This region was eliminated because the amplitude was too great.

 

The third video is merely another animation of the stationary fundamental particle such as an electron. This view shows some decrease in intensity with distance, but it still is not able to capture the range of strength required for an accurate depiction of amplitude.  All the videos show rotation in a fixed plane.  The rotation is chaotic with an expectation rotational axis, but all other rotational directions are possible with the exception of the opposite of the expectation rotational direction.  

 

The fourth video is the first of three videos which shows a moving monopole.  This is not a true simulation of a moving electron because it is intended to explain some points using a simplified model.  This is a monopole emitter rather than a rotating dipole.  If this was stationary the left panel would show outgoing waves as concentric blue and yellow zones expanding from the single central emitter.  The center panel would be the inward waves and would appear to be concentric waves propagating towards the center.   The right panel with no relative motion would be standing waves which would appear to be concentric circles with alternating blue and yellow colors that do not move, but they would fade in and out and change color each half cycle.  

 

This fourth video actually depicts a monopole emitter moving to the right at about 30% the speed of light.  Notice that the left panel shows that the Doppler shift on the outgoing waves produces a shortening of the wave spacing on the right side of the left panel and an increase in the wave spacing on the opposite side of this panel.  The middle panel (incoming waves) shown the opposite effect, produced by motion to the right at about 30% of the speed of light.  Notice the nice straight interference effects.  The simulation of de Broglie waves has the correct wavelength, correct group velocity and correct phase velocity.  A better simulation would have all three panels moving from left to right because they are depicting things that require relative motion 

 

The next animation (5th animation) shows another unrealistic effect which illustrates a point.  In this animation we use rotating dipoles rather than monopole emitters, therefore there are rotating Archimedes spirals.  However, the problem is that the left and center panels are rotating opposite directions.  This implies no angular momentum since the opposite rotations cancel each other.  The result is that once again we have nice straight de Broglie fringes.  The previous video had a monopole emitter which also had no angular momentum and therefore straight de Broglie waves.   

 

Since we are simulating a rotating wave that forms an electron or other fundamental particle, there should be some difference in the de Broglie waves produced by clockwise rotation compared to counter clockwise rotation.  The 6th video (the last video) shows the correct angular momentum for both outgoing and incoming waves.  Both spirals are rotating the same direction and the relative motion is again about 30% of the speed of light.  The result is amazing.  In the right panel the interference fringes are no longer straight.  Pausing the video and then moving the slider at the bottom allows different conditions to be examined.  It takes two fringes to complete one de Broglie wavelength. Therefore the top half of this panel contains one more complete de Broglie wave than the bottom half.  If both outgoing and incoming rotations are reversed, then the de Broglie wave pattern changes and the unusual effect occurs in the bottom half of the panel. 

 

A long distance from the extra wave (from the rotar), the distortion produces a ¼ wavelength shift between the top half and the bottom half (recall that it takes 2 antinodes to complete one de Broglie wavelength).  Therefore, this might be predicting that there should be an experimentally observable difference in the single slit interference pattern produced by electrons passing through the single slit when their spin axis is parallel to the long dimension of the slit (the condition simulated) compared to other orientations.  For example, the single slit interference pattern produced when the electron passes through a slit with its spin axis either parallel to the propagation direction or parallel to the narrow dimension of the slit should produce straight, evenly spaced de Broglie waves.  This would have to be analyzed further because a lot of questions would need to be answered and exact predictions made.   

 

If a simulation was performed with the spin axis oriented either parallel to the direction of motion relative to the slit or parallel to the narrow dimension of the slit, then the interference pattern would be straight lines like the previous two videos and the single slit pattern produced should be the same as for light.   The effect described would have a only a small effect on the double slit experiments already performed with electrons.  It would probably would not be noticeable.  A single slit would be easier to analyze and the effect should be more noticeable. 

 

In conclusion, the same model which predicted a connection between gravity and the electrostatic forces also produces a good simulation of de Broglie waves.  The next step is multiple other simulations.  Eventually someone should notice and join the fun.   

 

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 <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150604/2a5ccaf9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150604/2a5ccaf9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150604/2a5ccaf9/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150604/2a5ccaf9/attachment-0002.png>