[General] Challenge

[Chip Akins]

Hi John M

 

Speaking from my perspective, I think that most members of this group
believe that space is comprised of something like Chandra’s CTF, or
something similar to your space model.  However analyzing a model of space
requires knowing and understanding all the properties of space well enough
to model it in a way that displays the properties of the particles, forces,
and fields.  I think you have given it a very valuable effort.  We know
that Maxwell’s “fluid mechanics” approach worked well to describe a part
of the actions of fields in space.  So it is a short step to assume that
implies that space consists of a sort of superfluid.  This is not new.
However I am reluctant to jump in and model space with so much speculation,
but would rather lay sufficient groundwork first, so as not to have to take
so many guesses.  Much of that groundwork must be laid by understanding the
fields, waves, and forces.  That can be done better by modeling the
particles, testing the models, and choosing the solution which matches
experiment in all ways. So if we can understand specifically what space
does in relation to fields, waves, and forces, we can then attempt to model
space with some hope of accuracy.

 

After reading your work I find some items of significant value, however I
do not think you have the model of space quite right yet.  I think there
are still things missing in your model and I think that some of the
assumptions have yielded results which do not agree with the observable.

 

I think, and perhaps others feel as well, that by studying the things we
can observe, seeing how all the pieces fit, establishing understandable
relationships between those items, understanding the geometries,
topologies, actions of fields and forces, we will be able to model space
with more accuracy.

 

My eventual goal is to model space.  But for me it is too early to attempt
that, because there are several issues which must be worked out before I
can know the exact properties of space.  So it is an interesting exercise
and speculation to model space as you have done, but for me it is
insufficient to do the task like this.  It seems that if we model space in
a way which gives us spin 1 electrons, or electrons with a radius of
Compton’s wavelength over 2 pi, we have done it incorrectly. And I would
think that if we model space correctly we will find the cause for Planck’s
constant, as well as the elementary charge, the fine structure constant,
the speed of light, and a host of other “constants” which are a result of
the space we live in.

 

I do admire the task you have undertaken, and much of the work you have
done. But my take on your model so far is that it is still quite
incomplete, has a few errors, is quite speculative, and has not been as
fruitful yet as such a spacetime model should be.

 

This is not intended to be a dismissal of your work, on the contrary, it is
intended to give some praise for much of the approach, but to indicate that
a reasonable model of space will eventually disclose to us many things we
have been looking for, and, in my opinion, your model is just not there yet.

 

As has been stated before, there is significant value in each approach,
whether from the standpoint of fields, waves, forces, or the standpoint of
the makeup of space.  These will eventually converge into one comprehensive
explanation.  So in my opinion, debating the merits of these individual
approaches is not productive. But creating a comprehensive and accurate
description of the fields, waves, forces, and of space, is a worthy goal.

 

With Respect

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of John Macken
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:04 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Challenge

 

Hello All,

 

Various graphic representations of electrons have been presented by members
of the group.  They have looked like knots, spirals, loops and even
medieval torture devices. However, not once has there been any description
of the medium or the distortion that is being pictured.  This is the
equivalent of drawing a three dimensional graph except failing to designate
what exactly is being graphed.  

 

When I show pictures of my electron model, I can tell you exactly what is
being graphed.  I have a spacetime field with impedance and a wave
structure.  My electron model produces quantifiable distortions of this
spacetime field.  They have specific wave properties with known strain
amplitude, known frequency and known size. While I cannot predict the
energy of an electron from first principles, I can calculate the energy of
the model being pictured and show that it corresponds to the electron’s
energy.  I do not hide behind the equation E = ħω and say that no further
calculation is required.  I can derive E = ħω from my proposed structure
of the spacetime field.  

 

Therefore, my challenge to the group is to identify what is being shown in
the pictures. Are these waves?  If so, give the details of the medium
carrying the waves. String theory has served as a bad example because they
draw pictures of vibrating strings while claiming that the strings are a
basic building block that is not made of anything more fundamental.  If a
photon or an electric field is your basic building block, are you claiming
that it is also unknowable? 

 

For those that doubt the existence of the energetic spacetime field, I
challenge you to identify the components being pictured in your electron
models. 

 

John M.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150630/78f02460/attachment.htm>