[General] Electron's Radius

[John Macken]

Hi Chip and Everyone,

 

You asked about why I claim that the dipole waves that form energetic spacetime have no angular momentum.  I have several reasons that are explained in various parts of the book, but I will give three of them here.

 

First, the photons that are part of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are continuously being redshifted.  They are losing energy but retaining 100% of their angular momentum.  In my model, the lost energy has not disappeared from the universe. It has been converted to energy of the dipole waves that make up the energetic spacetime field.  The energy lost from the CMB photons transferred no angular momentum to the spacetime field since 100% of the angular momentum remained with the surviving redshifted photon.  Therefore, this is an example of the energy of the spacetime field increasing but no angular momentum being added.  

 

The second, mush longer reason is explained in chapters 13 and 14 of my book.  These chapters are devoted to the cosmological implications of the assumption that the universe is only spacetime.  These chapters complete a lot of loose ends from previous chapters and the question about angular momentum is one of them.  If the universe is only spacetime today, it must have always been only spacetime, even at the beginning of the Big Bang.  Therefore, what is the model of the Big Bang if the only building block is 4 dimensional spacetime? Also, the explanation is forbidden to say things like “the laws of physics break down.”  This is the fallback position when physicists cannot explain something.   

 

Therefore, the starting condition for the Big Bang is a form of spacetime that I call “Planck spacetime” rather than a singularity where the laws of physics “break down”.  The properties of Planck spacetime can be obtained by extrapolating backwards from today using known laws of physics (no “inflation” where the laws of physics break down).    Imagine that we were to go backwards in time.  We would see the CMB photons being blue shifted to the energy that they had in earlier times.  Energy would be extracted from the dipole waves that form the spacetime field and added to the CMB photons.  Even though today most of the observable energy in the universe is in observable fermions, the vast majority of the “quantized angular momentum” is in the CMB photons and in dark matter.  For this explanation we will ignore dark matter.  

 

The universe has gone through 3 phases, but now I am most interested in the first epoch known as the radiation dominated epoch.  It lasted from the Big Bang to about 70,000 years after the Big Bang.  In this epoch most of the energy in the universe was in the form of the energy in the CMB photons.  As we extrapolate back towards the Big Bang (without inflation) we get to a time when all the energy was in the form of photons before the first particles were formed out of these photons.  

    

Obviously, the energy in these photons increases until we reach the limit of what spacetime can support.  This limit is 100% of the photons having Planck energy (about 2x109 J) and each photon occupying a volume equal to Planck length cubed. The temperature of this condition exactly equals Planck temperature ∿ 1032° K. This energy density is 10113 J/m3 which is exactly the same energy density as the spacetime field has today.  How can this be possible?  The answer is that in Planck spacetime 100% of the energy of the universe possessed angular momentum while today only about 1 part in 10120 possesses quantized angular momentum.  We can only interact with energy that possesses quantized angular momentum. Therefore we think that the energy density of the universe has vastly decreased from the Big Bang to today.  The universe thinks that there has been no change in the energy density. The energy has only changed from being “observable” (possessing quantized angular momentum) to being not observable by us. 

 

This all sounds good, but is there any proof that this is what has happened? Actually there is some strong indications.  I have several different ways of calculating the expansion of the universe from Planck spacetime (Big Bang) to today.  All of these calculations give about the same answer which is an expansion of about 2.6x1031 times in each of the 3 spatial dimensions.  This gives a volume expansion of about 1094 times.  (I have skipped all the details about how expansion happens – that is in the book). I then make the assumption that there has been on average no new quantized angular momentum added to the universe since the Big Bang. Initially this seems like a wrong assumption.  It is possible to see individual cases where colliding particles create a great number of new particles which temporarily increase the number of particles with quantized angular momentum.  However, my analysis indicates that there are offsetting effects which tend to keep the total in the universe constant.  However, the primary consideration is that CMB photons possess about one million times more quantized angular momentum than fermions, so what happens to the fermion count is relatively unimportant. 

 

Therefore, with this assumption, it is possible to calculate the density of quantized angular momentum units that should be in the universe today extrapolating from the density in Planck spacetime.  The number should be about 1094 times lower density today than the number in Planck spacetime because of the 1094 volume increase.  A calculation shows that ignoring the quantized angular momentum in dark matter, the density with this crude calculation is off by only a factor of 6 out of 1094.  Furthermore, if the energy of dark matter particles is about 0.3 eV, then this would make up the factor of 6 and the number would be exactly correct.  We know that 0.3 eV is the approximate energy of neutrinos.  I propose a way for neutrinos to be cooled to a temperature of about 0.01° K which would give them all the properties required to explain dark matter, but that is a different subject. 

 

The point of this long discussion about cosmology is that the spacetime field cannot possess quantized angular momentum because it would have to be present since the beginning of the Big Bang.  Extrapolating backwards from today, we have accounted for all the angular momentum without requiring the spacetime field to possess vast amounts of quantized angular momentum.

 

Also, a third reason why the dipole waves that form the spacetime field cannot have quantized angular momentum is as follows. The entire explanation of fundamental particles is that they are merely units of quantized angular momentum which organize the energy in the dipole waves in spacetime into observable units.  For example, this is key to explaining why electrons appear to be point particles.  If the spacetime field itself contained quantized angular momentum, then the entire explanation of fundamental particles would disappear.    

 

There is another explanation of why superfluids do not have angular momentum in the bulk material, but I have probably already said too much.  

 

John M.  

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 6:21 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron's Radius

 

Hi John M

 

After some work and thought it occurs to me that what I was hoping for while reading your work, was to find the specific conditions of spacetime resonance which describe fermions. Of course I was also looking for alpha, and a better description of photons, decay rates, and an underlying mechanism causing spin.

It seems that a workable model of spacetime must be able to provide such fundamental basis.  I know there is still much work to do, but thought you would like to know what some of us will be looking for.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 3:00 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Electron's Radius

 

Hi Chip and Everyone,

 

Chip, you asked a simple question about the electron’s radius, but it is one that I have avoided until now because my answer conflicts with almost all the other members of the group.  To explain my answer I have to start at first principles and work forward.  Everything that I have done starts with the assumption that the universe is only 4 dimensional spacetime.  I have found that starting with that assumption it appears that all the mysteries of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) can be conceptually understood.  I am not saying that I have personally solved “all” the mysteries, but I have solved enough of them to have confidence that this is the missing assumption which is required to unite QM and GR.  

 

This assumption restricts a scientist to a very narrow path with very little “wiggle” room.  If this was a wrong assumption, it would quickly lead to a dead-end because it does not allow wild new assumptions to be adopted. (no point particles, extra dimensions, multiverse, messenger particles etc.). However, if this is the correct assumption, the narrow path leads to amazing answers which are all interconnected and can be quantitatively analyzed.  I have had the experience of discovering that following this narrow path, I develop answers to scientific questions that I was not attempting to answer. Think of this as a “bottom up” approach to theoretical physics.  It starts with a few assumptions extrapolated from the basic assumption and works forward.  If the basic assumption is wrong, this would be an impossible task and it would be necessary to move on to some different starting assumptions.  My experience has been that this basic assumption always gives correct answers.  The few times that I have attempted to jump ahead to explain some physical effect without basing it on the physical properties of spacetime, I have usually obtained wrong answers.  I then went back and worked forward from the starting assumption and then obtained reasonable answers which could be quantified.   

 

In order to develop a model of particles which can produce the gravitational curvature of spacetime required by GR, it is necessary to incorporate waves which modulate both the rate of time and proper volume.  Such waves in spacetime are forbidden by GR on the macroscopic scale covered by GR.  If such waves existed on the macroscopic scale, it would be possible to violate the conservation of momentum and also it would be possible to extract virtually unlimited energy from the vacuum.  However, QM allows such waves provided that the displacement of space does not exceed ± Planck length and the displacement of the rate of time does exceed ± Planck time.  Gravitational waves do not modulate time and space but dipole waves in spacetime perfectly meets these requirements.  Furthermore, they are the most fundamental (simplest) waveform.

 

Chip, you previously asked about the possibility of longitudinal waves in spacetime.  Dipole waves in spacetime can be thought of as being longitudinal waves in spacetime, but this definition is a little tricky since they are modulating volume so they have both longitudinal and transverse qualities.  

 

Now we can move on to the model of an electron.  I will start with a question for proponents that argue that the radius must be ½ λc because that is the radius that gives ½ ħ angular momentum.  That model implies that all the electron’s energy is concentrated in one or two point particles which are rotating at the speed of light in a single plane in a circle with radius ½ λc.  Such a model has a moment of inertia like a rotating hoop which nicely gives ½ ħ angular momentum.  However, this model uses mysterious point particles.  What are they made of?  What keeps the infinite energy density pressure from dissipating? What restrains the particles so that they propagate in a circle?  What is charge?

 

I claim that there are only dipole waves in spacetime which occupy finite volume.  There are no point particles. All the particle properties are the result of some dipole waves possessing quantized angular momentum (explained in the foundation paper). Therefore, my model of an electron is a dipole wave in spacetime with strain amplitude (strain slope) of As = Lp/λc ≈ 4.18x10-23 (dimensionless ratio). This can be mathematically represented as having a radius of λc, but being a wave it is distributed over a volume.  In the book I show that the wave properties present near the circumference fade into a rotating rate of time gradient at the center of the electron model.  This rate of time gradient has similarities to a rotating gravitational field.  Calculations show that this has exactly the same energy density as the rotating dipole wave near the circumference.  This gives my model uniform energy density which would exhibit a moment of inertial closer to a rotating disk rather than a rotating hoop. A rotating disk has half the moment of inertia as a rotating hoop, therefore the model must have twice the radius (r = λc) to achieve ½ ħ angular momentum.  

 

It would be nice to end here, but there are further complicating considerations.  The rotation is not in a nice stable single plane.  This is at the limit of causality and the rotation has QM uncertainty.  There is an expectation rotational axis, but all other rotations are possible with different probabilities except that the opposite rotation to the expectation direction has a probability of zero.  This is explained in the book.  This chaotic rotation lowers the angular momentum measured around the expectation axis.  I explain both in the foundation article and the book that the exact energy distribution and size needs to be worked out by others, but at this stage of development, arm waving arguments result in angular momentum being ½ ħ. While there is some flexibility in the energy distribution, the particle’s mathematical radius needs to be λc for all my calculations.

 

The proponents of the double loop model must require that the rotation be in a single plane with no QM chaotic motion.  If you allow for chaotic rotation (required to give probabilistic spin orientation), then this lowers the angular momentum to less than ½ ħ because the chaotic rotation has probabilistic rotational orientations which invalidate the ½ ħ objective.   My model clearly can result in net angular momentum of ½ ħ but I do not see much hope for the double loop model unless it adopts wave properties which then allow it to have a distributed volume with radius exceeding ½ λc.

 

My model gives an exact distortion of spacetime (curvature) at radius equal to λc.  Scaling from this known effect at this radius allows me to calculate the correct curvature of spacetime at larger distances and allows me to calculate the gravitational force at large distances.  The electrostatic and gravitational properties that I calculate also require that the frequency of standing waves in the surrounding volume must be at the particle’s Compton frequency.  

 

I am sure that this will raise objections and questions.  I welcome these.

 

John M.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150509/bd1800f3/attachment.htm>