[General] Challenge

[Chip Akins]

Hi John M

 

Thank you.  

 

Regarding your comment: This is the approach taken by generations of physicists.  It has been successful up to a point, but now we have reached the limit of this approach.  We have learned to live with many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity because this approach cannot get to the root cause.  Even the fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference is a mystery when you try to formulate a physical explanation. Extrapolating from this you can reasonably arrive at Lorentz transformations, but you won’t get to the underlying cause.  

 

You are quite accurate in that our current physics does not reveal the rest of the puzzle.  And in the suggestion that doing a bottom-up analysis can be helpful in sorting this stuff out.

However, if we did not still have some basic errors in our understanding, meaning errors in the foundations of our thinking, we could make better progress.

What I am suggesting is that some of the problems stem from building on slightly invalid assumptions, both in relativity, and in QM. And that without those assumptions hindering us, we may be able to use both a bottom-up, and a top-down approach, to converge on a model which more accurately reflects nature.

 

Currently I think that list of possible errors in our foundations is briefly:

 

1.       Point Particles

2.       Nothing can travel faster than Light ( when we have FTL tunneling, and the velocity of the Coulomb field, as clear examples of things which travel faster than light)

3.       An improper interpretation of relativity, and time, and not recognizing that the speed of light, and the fact that particles are made of the same stuff light is made of, creates relativity and time as we know it. And from this there is a clear cause for relativity and Lorentz transformations, and a clear definition of when and how to apply them correctly.

4.       Believing in the “Schrodinger’s Cat” type of superposition, and the “role of the observer” in understanding what is reality.

5.       The illusion of entanglement. Not understanding that Bell’s work assumed point particles, and did not consider the properties of spherical motion, or non-commuting rotations which can exist as local variables, yielding the same inequalities as CSHS  or Bell’s inequalities in a local variable theory.

6.       Not understanding the quantum implications of extended fields making up particles.

7.       Assuming that Maxwell’s equations, (the Maxwell 20) are complete.

 

Interestingly, a bottom-up approach such as the one you have taken can help to illustrate some of the above potential errors and their solutions.

 

Note: Maxwell used both the top-down and bottom-up approach, with the data available at the time to create a remarkable work.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:37 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Challenge

 

Chip,

 

Thank you for your comments.  I know that what I have started is incomplete.  However, I really would like to hear more details about what you find to be wrong.  If you want to communicate directly with me about this, my email address is:     john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com> 

 

I would like to comment on your main point stated in the following sentence. “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.”  This is the approach taken by generations of physicists.  It has been successful up to a point, but now we have reached the limit of this approach.  We have learned to live with many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity because this approach cannot get to the root cause.  Even the fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference is a mystery when you try to formulate a physical explanation. Extrapolating from this you can reasonably arrive at Lorentz transformations, but you won’t get to the underlying cause.  

 

I decided to take a different approach and start with what I believed is the simplest possible starting assumption: The universe is only spacetime.  If this is a wrong assumption, it should quickly lead to wrong answers.  However, if it is the single correct starting assumption required to understand the universe, then it should lead to a narrow path and numerous correct answers. I say “narrow path” because this assumption offers very little “wiggle room”.  The properties of spacetime are very restrictive and limit choices. This is a bottom up approach.  I have experienced that progressing along this thought process, every time I got a new insight, I saw that the new insight answered several physics questions that I had not even addressed.  

 

Somehow, when I hear the word “speculative” it implies to me that there is a loss of contact with anything that can check the accuracy of the approach.  When Maxwell created the equation:  c = (1/εoµo)1/2, this was never called “speculative” because it could easily be proven correct. I have created about 10 equations which show various relationships between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force for particles.  These are all correct and cannot be called speculative.  They imply that both forces fundamentally scale with λc, the particle’s reduced Compton wavelength.  They also imply that the gravity and electromagnetic effects are related by a square term (wave amplitude squared).  Both the λc dependence and the square relationship were predictions of my particle model.  I think other electromagnetic insights relating to photons and electric field also have independent support. 

 

Perhaps most important, my approach has sufficient quantifiable detail that it can be computer modeled.  I visualize a new age of physics where quantum mechanical effects can be computer modeled with the same accuracy as we model colliding galaxies today. 

 

John M. 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:46 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Challenge

 

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/b1096cc2/attachment.htm>