[General] Predictions - Rebuttal

Wed May 6 15:33:30 PDT 2015

Hi John M

One thing is puzzling me.

A question relating to your statement below:

You wrote¡

¡°In particular, I initially call your attention to the gravitational
equation (15) and the electrostatic equation (16).  The only difference
between the intermediate part of these two equations is that the
gravitational equation (15) has the strain amplitude terms squared (As1As2)2
and the electrostatic force equation (16) has the strain amplitude terms not
squared (As1As2).¡±

And your equations referenced:

In practice, the elementary charge is the unit of charge, (Planck¡¯s charge
is not) because the elementary charge is the quantization of charge which
particles exhibit. So in order for these two equations to work in practice
we must set k=1 in equation (15) and we must set k=fine structure constant
in equation (16), making these equations explicitly different in more than
just the exponents, and different by a factor we already knew. Can you
explain where the new information is in this set of equations?

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:45 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Predictions - Rebuttal

John W and Everyone,

Before addressing your comments, I want to make one brief comment about a
communications problem that apparently exists. I noticed that some equations
that I sent out were not shown properly in the return email. For example, Ui
= k Fp/¦Ë2 was properly reproduced but point #4 contained the following
partially dropped equation: ¡°c =    ¡±. The difference between the two
equations is that the dropped portion of the equation was created using the
Microsoft equation insert tool that I previously wrote about.  I know that
the equation was sent properly because I receive correct copies at two
different email addresses. If you are not receiving the complete equations,
perhaps the problem is either your program or your service provider. 

Even if you did not have received all the equations sent in previous emails,
the attachments contained the most important information. In particular, I
want to focus on your harsh criticism on points #4 and #5.  In 3 previous
postings sent on April 7, April 21 and April 29 I attached a copy of my
paper that was just published by Springer titled; Spacetime-based foundation
of quantum mechanics and general relativity. In these and other postings
that I have discussed the mentioned topics, particularly points #4 and #5.
Since the ¡°foundation¡± paper will be referenced in my rebuttal, I have
attached a 4th copy for easy access.  

The ¡°foundation¡± paper has received a lot of attention recently.  It has
been downloaded 72 times on ResearchGate and 861 times from my website. I
have received many email comments on it, but none were critical. One Caltech
professor¡¯s comment was ¡°Once you accept the contention of dipole waves in
spacetime, everything else follows logically¡±.

Now I will turn to your comments. In response to point #4 you commented: ¡°I
do not understand this one. The gravitational force is, experimentally,
inverse square with the mass, the electrostatic force inverse square with
the charge. Different particles (e.g. electron and muon) have different
masses, yet the same charge. The only way to make these the same difference
is to divide out the mass (inversely proportional to the reduced Compton
wavelength). Is this what you mean?¡±  The answer to this question is an
emphatic No! Dividing out the mass would only address the difference between
the electron and muon. It does not connect the gravitational force to the
electrostatic force through a simple difference in exponents as I claim.
You did not read the text that you are criticizing.  The detailed answers
are contained in equations 13 to 23 in the attached paper. 

In particular, I initially call your attention to the gravitational equation
(15) and the electrostatic equation (16).  The only difference between the
intermediate part of these two equations is that the gravitational equation
(15) has the strain amplitude terms squared (As1As2)2 and the electrostatic
force equation (16) has the strain amplitude terms not squared (As1As2).
This difference in the exponents creates the vast difference between the
weak gravitational force and the relatively strong electrostatic force.  The
squaring of the amplitude terms in the gravitational equation also creates
the single polarity of the gravitational force.  It is always positive.

On April 12, I sent out a post titled ¡°Attack on Virtual Photon Force
Carriers¡±.  In this post I showed that the reduced Compton wavelength (¦Ëc
¡Ö 3.86x10-13 m) is unique in its ability to unite the forces. Even when
there is a factor of 2 difference as advocated by the double loop group, the
simple connection between the forces breaks down.  The following equations
with the underlined terms are explained in the attached paper, but the
comparison between single loop and double loop was a point in the April 12
post.

Single loop relationship:      Fg =   FE2 =    Ei4

Double loop relationship:     Fg = FE2/4 = 4Ei4

The point is that merely including a mass term does not achieve the desired
goal.  The forces fundamentally scale with ¦Ëc and the connection between
the forces breaks down with any other term.

Moving on, I find the comments to point #5 particularly offensive.  I said
¡°I have proposed a new constant of nature ¡¡±  Your answer was: ¡°This is
just another constant replacing the charge with one (inversely) proportional
to it.¡±  My point #5 continues: ¡°One of the predictions resulting from
analysis using this constant is the impedance of free space Zo ¡Ö 377 ¦¸
converts to the impedance of spacetime Zs = c3/G.¡±  You said, ¡°One can
always find a constant converting one impedance to another¡¡±  

This subject is covered starting on page 238 of the attached paper.  The
charge conversion constant was derived, then tested in exactly the sequence
described.  Substituting an inverse charge does nothing to describe the
effect on spacetime produced by charge.  I show that the charge conversion
constant produces a number of unexpected but reasonable results.  All the
electrostatic equations continue to be valid when the charge conversion
constant is introduced to convert Coulomb to a strain of spacetime. The
Coulomb force constant 1/4¦Ð¦Åo converts to Planck force Fp = c4/G.  Most
important, this conversion gives the correct energy density for photons and
electric fields.  It is the key to understanding charge and electric fields
in terms of something more fundamental. 

I welcome critical, thoughtful comments. If after reading the attached paper
you have any such comments, I welcome your input.

John M.    

From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:51 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Predictions

Hello John M and everyone,

I think, in general, we need to make a distinction between hypotheses and
"predictions". Hypotheses are a starting point, predictions are those things
that flow from that. It seems to me that most of the items below fall into
the former, rather than the latter, category.

I will go blue.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:34 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Predictions

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 ¡À Planck length modulation of space and ¡À
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. 

That these are dipole waves in space-time is derivative to and in in
addition to your fundamental starting hypothesis. Is it not?  That they are,
further, "fundamentally undetectable" is a second hypothesis. This is the
point I am least happy with. If it cannot be detected it cannot be
disproved.

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. 

This seems to contain a set of hypotheses: firstly that particles are
"quantised angular momentum". Why not just start with quantised angular
momentum and ditch the superstructure? Second, that particles are a
¡°disturbance¡± in a dipole medium ¨C though the nature of that disturbance
seems not fully specified. Third, there are a set of non-specified
"nonlinearities" which give rise to the actual measureable effects observed.
What are these and how do they work? Differential equations would be nice.

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/¦Ë2.  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.

Again there is no prediction here. This is an extra presumption, derived
from existing quantum mechanics, that you have put in. Setting the scale for
an ¡°interactive energy density¡±reduces the magnitude of the fundamental
problem - but the energies and masses you come up with are still very large
indeed even for this reduced energy scale.

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.

I do not understand this one. The gravitational force is, experimentally,
inverse square with the mass, the electrostatic force inverse square with
the charge. Different particles (e.g. electron and muon) have different
masses, yet the same charge. The only way to make these the same difference
is to divide out the mass (inversely proportional to the reduced Compton
wavelength). Is this what you mean?

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.

This is just another constant replacing the charge with one (inversely)
proportional to it.

One of the predictions resulting from analysis using this constant is the
impedance of free space Zo ¡Ö 377 ¦¸ converts to the impedance of spacetime
Zs = c3/G. 

One can always find a constant converting one impedance to another. If a =
cb then a/b =c. The conversion constant here has dimension and magnitude.
You cannot then say these are the same.

This predicts that photons propagate in the spacetime field just like
gravitational waves.  

Is this not the other way round ¨C if you want the gravitational waves in
your model to travel at lightspeed, then they must have those properties.

The spacetime field becomes the new quantum mechanical version of the
aether.  Quantization of photons and the constant speed of light become
conceptually understandable. 

How?

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.

Is this not just simply related to the usual Planck- scale problems?

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.

The whole point of the Planck scale is it is that scale at which the QM
scale meets the black-hole radius. Is this a surprise? Anyway your view of
experimental confirmation differs from mine. For me, experiments are things
you can do not things you can¡¯t do. Practically, space breaks down and
electrons jump at far lower voltages than is required to make a black hole.
The fact that one cannot do an experiment in principle does not confirm a
theory - merely makes it untestable in that respect.

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. 

Your starting presumption is, is it not, that all of space is full of this
high energy density. Why, then is it not big-banging (like) all of the time?

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.  

This may be so

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.

Muddied by the experimental observation of Arp-type objects

  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. 

True.

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.

You will still have to deal with Arp type objects

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.

Two observations: we do not currently observe galaxies with many millions of
light years of the (then) lightspeed edge, as they are redshifted almost to
oblivion (and they were pretty far away anyway). There are anyway other
theories (like Hoyle's) with similar properties - one does not need a huge
energy density in background space for this.

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.  

I really like the fundamental idea that ¡°everything is made of spacetime¡±.
I do not see why, however, you feel the need to start at the point where
quantum theory and general relativity break down. For the description of
photons and electrons, why not just start with quantised angular momentum if
you are just putting that in anyway and it does not follow from your model
of space? I¡¯m confused: what is the added value? 

For me, and for many in this group, particles are made from fields. Fields
are something you can measure and observe. The underlying space-time you
propose cannot, by hypothesis, be measured or observed. You dismiss the
models we are proposing as being made of ¡°castles in the air¡±, and this
may be so, but at least the ¡°air¡± in which those models are being proposed
is an observable ¡°air¡±. Not un-measureable in principle.

In conclusion, my own feeling is that the particular model you propose for
the nature of space-time has, at present, more going into it in the way of
hypotheses than is coming out of it in terms of predictions.

Regards, John W.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150506/04d15b37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 18552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150506/04d15b37/attachment.png>