[General] Energy Density of Spacetime

Mon May 4 15:13:40 PDT 2015

David,

I will attempt to answer the first of your comments.  You said that my 5 page analysis of the energy density of spacetime “carefully avoids discussion of the Mach theory.”  I presume that you are talking about what I known as the Mach principle.  Briefly stated, the Mach principle says”  “mass there influences inertia here”. I did not carefully avoid this.  In fact, I think that the Mach principle is a completely bogus idea that is not needed to explain inertia. 

Two of the 8 similarities between confined photons and fundamental particles is that confined photons (photons in a reflecting box or photons “confined” in an electron model) exhibit both inertia when the box is accelerating and kinetic energy when the box is moving at a constant speed relative to an observer.  In my book I show that this connection is perfect.  For example, confined photons even exhibit relativistic effects when the box is moving at relativistic speed.  The Higgs field is usually credited with giving inertia to fundamental particles.  However, I claim that the Higgs mechanism does not specify how it gives exactly the correct amount of inertia to fundamental particles.  

Here is the problem.  It is possible to calculate the difference in photon pressure between the “front” and “rear” internal mirror surfaces when the box is accelerated.  It is not necessary to invoke either the Mach principle or the Higgs mechanism to show that the difference in photon pressure produces a net force which exactly matches the inertial force that would be exerted by particles of equal energy. I is necessary for a given amount of energy to exert the same inertia whether it is in the form of particles of confined photons.   If there was not equal inertia, then this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum.  Therefore it is no surprise that there is a perfect match.  However, with the Higgs mechanism there is no conceptually understandable perfect connection between energy in the form of confined photons and the same energy in the form of particles.  The only connection that I have seen is E = mc2.  However, this is one of many “laws” which needs to be explained by any theory which attempts to go beyond current physics.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that when particles are made of either dipole waves in spacetime or photons (single or double loop) then the particles exhibit exactly the correct amount of inertia without requiring any contribution from either the Mach principle or the Higgs mechanism.  Therefore, I did not “carefully avoid discussion of the Mach theory”.  In my opinion, the Mach principle is simply is a wrong hypothesis. 

I thought that this would be a brief answer.  If you or anyone else can select one question at a time, I will attempt to answer the carefully selected questions in future posts. I think that I have answers for almost all the questions.  I like to be challenged.

John M.         

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 12:48 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Energy Density of Spacetime

John

Castles in the air are just another name for a spaceship...

In reading the 5 page write up, I'm still a bit skeptical. The theory carefully avoids discussion of Mach theory. However, the derivation of impedance is good with c and G accounted for, but h is not. So while this theory is useful, it's more of a relativistic argument only and not fully embracing QM, and therefore not quantum gravity. Even if cGh were all accounted for, the presumption is that the current values are the maximum. However, this leads to the more daunting challenge of increasing or varying any one of those values. 

What are the 17 different fields? I assume you are referring to the set of 16 standard model particles plus Higgs? What if there is just one more field?

Can the spacetime energy density vary? Is a negative vacuum permitted?

Does it vary linearly? Is it subject to the Schwinger limit where results go from linear to non-linear?

Given your conclusion that waves of any kind that propagate in the medium with impedance Zs = c^3/G and strain amplitude As = Lp/(2pi λ) will propagate at c, the speed of light, are you assuming a fixed numeric value for c? 

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: Monday, May 4, 2015 12:12 PM
Subject: [General] Energy Density of Spacetime

Hello Everyone,

One of my major points has been that I think that your electron models are like castles in the sky that lack a solid foundation.  I am attempting to give you this foundation so that you can explain your models as being constructed of something fundamental and quantifiable.  

In an earlier post someone asked me a question to the effect of:  Why does the proposed tremendous energy density of spacetime not collapse into a black hole? This simple question has taken me two weeks and 5 pages to answer. See the attached Word or PDF documents (they are the same).  This has been a wonderful challenge because I expanded this into a challenge to see if I could prove that spacetime possesses energy density of about 10113 J/m3 without referencing any ideas from quantum mechanics.  I have succeeded by using an equation from general relativity and an equation from acoustics. 

The attached Word document is actually a revised part of my book that incorporates both the derivation of the energy density of spacetime and the answer to the question about black holes.  My hope is that I can convince some of you that it is not necessary to talk in vague terms of “waves” or “fields”.  These are merely giving names to something that needs to be specified more completely.  The reader should ask: What exactly is the “wave” or “field” made of?  I see your pictures that attempt to represent electrons.  However, the pictures do not specify the fundamental material used to construct the electron.  

The first step in elevating these electron models is to convince you that spacetime has quantifiable energy density that is compatible with your existing views about general relativity and cosmology.  I hope that the either of the attached documents take a big step towards that goal.    

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/20150504/c8273afe/attachment.htm>