[General] Predictions

Tue May 5 15:34:20 PDT 2015

Hello Everyone,

Richard and I had an email exchange in which Richard wrote the following:  “I have noticed that some of your predictions are about previously known facts like black holes. This kind of result is important but not conclusive for your hypothesis (I won’t call it a theory) as you know. Your hypothesis should predict new results that are in the realm of testability. I am concerned that your defining the uncertainty principle in terms of Planck lengths and times is quite out of the range of present testability. It would help (maybe you have done this somewhere) if you made a list of experimentally testable new predictions from your approach, and shared that with the e-mail discussion group.”  

I decided to make such a list, but first I want to make the following comment. It is true that a prediction that can be proven by a plausible experiment is the gold standard of a physics theory.  Most of my predictions do not reach that gold standard, but they are predictions and perhaps qualify for a silver or bronze standard.  Here is a list of some of my predictions.  The first two points below are predictions which are fundamentally unprovable by direct experiment.  However, they are mentioned because they form the background for the other predictions. 

1)    Unprovable prediction #1:  My spacetime-based model of the universe “predicts” that the basis of all particles, fields and forces are dipole waves in spacetime which produce ± Planck length modulation of space and ± Planck time modulation of the rate of time. These waves fill all of space and give the vacuum its physical properties. These waves are fundamentally undetectable as individual waves but the effects of their presence are everywhere. 

2)    Unprovable prediction #2:   Fundamental particles are units of quantized angular momentum which result in a dipole wave in spacetime circulating at the speed of light in a volume with radius equal to the particle’s reduced Compton wavelength.  This activity creates a disturbance in the surrounding volume of dipole waves.  This disturbance involves standing waves at the particle’s Compton wavelength.  Nonlinearities create non-oscillating effects in spacetime which we know as the particle’s electric and gravitational fields. 

3)    The dipole waves in spacetime exhibit what I call an “interactive energy density” which means that other waves in spacetime which are less than Planck frequency can only interact (only couple) with a portion of the 10113 J/m3 total energy density of the dipole waves.  The predicted energy density equation is Ui = k Fp/λ2.  Even though this is a quantum mechanical concept, I have supported this prediction using gravitational wave equations from general relativity. At this time I cannot suggest an experiment, but the presence of this energy density should be experimentally provable by its effect on light and physical objects.  Therefore, it is plausible that others can devise an experiment.

4)    I have predicted that both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force fundamentally scale with a particle’s reduced Compton wavelength.  When these forces are expressed in terms of the number of reduced Compton wavelengths separating them, then the prediction was that the gravitational force and the electrostatic force are related by a simple difference in exponent.  This prediction has been shown to be correct.  The fact that it did not require an experiment has caused some to discount the importance of this prediction.  However, this relationship was previously unknown, so it has fulfilled the ultimate goal of expanding knowledge. When Maxwell developed his equations, the one that caught everyone's attention was: c =   This did not require an experiment to prove correct. At the time it was considered to be an important “prediction” (new insight) which supported the validity of his other equations. 

5)    I have proposed a new constant of nature which I call the “charge conversion constant”. This changes any terms containing “coulomb” into a distortion of spacetime with units of length.  One of the predictions resulting from analysis using this constant is the impedance of free space Zo ≈ 377 Ω converts to the impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G.  This predicts that photons propagate in the spacetime field just like gravitational waves.  The spacetime field becomes the new quantum mechanical version of the aether.  Quantization of photons and the constant speed of light become conceptually understandable.  This should produce experimentally measurable results, but the experiments that I can imagine produce an effect that is about a factor of 100 too small to measure with current technology. However, when I extrapolate this effect to the limiting condition of 100% distortion of the properties of spacetime, then the prediction is that there is a limit to the intensity of light which can be transmitted by spacetime. At the time that I first made this prediction, this seemed like an impossibility.  I was very surprised and relieved when the condition which produced 100% modulation of spacetime also turned out to be the condition which formed a black hole.  Since the black hole would block any further transmission of light, this was a correct prediction.

6)    I have also made predictions about experiments involving the distortion of spacetime produced by static electric or magnetic fields.  Again the predicted results from experiments that I have analyzed are too small to be measured with current technology. However, more advanced experiments should be able to measure this result.  However, again the model predicts that there should be a maximum voltage for any “cubic” vacuum capacitor.  This prediction is confirmed because the predicted maximum voltage would make a black hole.

7)    The spacetime-based cosmological model of the universe makes several predictions. The first is that the universe did not start from a singularity but started as the highest possible observable energy density that spacetime allows. The transformation that follows looks like the Big Bang. The first cosmological prediction is that what we perceive as the expansion of the universe is actually a transformation of the properties of spacetime. In this transformation, the rate of time in the universe is continuously decreasing and the proper volume of the universe is increasing. In this model, the rate of time and volume are inversely connected.  If we could compare the rate of time today to the rate of time a billion years ago, our rate of time today would be slower.  The apparent expansion is actually the result of spacetime changing in a way that we and our instruments are shrinking.  The redshift of distant galaxies is an observable fact.  However, the expansion of the universe is merely a theoretical interpretation of the redshift, not an experimentally observable fact.  We only observe a redshift and interpret this as an expansion of the universe. The spacetime-based model gives the same redshift but the interpretation is different.  The experimental conformation of the predicted model of the universe will have to come from astrophysicists interpreting data differently.      

8)    According to the commonly accepted model of the universe, galaxies with redshift beyond z = 1.8 are currently crossing our particle horizon and moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.  That model predicts that distance galaxies will eventually disappear from our view because their faster than light expansion will carry them beyond our particle horizon.  The spacetime-based model makes a different prediction.  This model predicts that the currently visible distant galaxies will not disappear from our view.  Instead, the counter intuitive prediction is that in the future those distant galaxies will appear to be more distant, but they will also have a smaller redshift.  Furthermore, other galaxies currently beyond our particle horizon, will become observable in the future.  This prediction takes a lengthy explanation.  The prediction’s accuracy should become obvious in a million years or so. However, theory and observation can probably be combined to verify this prediction sooner.

There are actually more predictions that are not included here because they require a more lengthy explanation and the means of verification is not obvious.  

John M.     

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150505/9e0c4217/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 664 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150505/9e0c4217/attachment.png>