[General] The Properties of Spacetime

Sat Oct 10 15:02:33 PDT 2015

Hello All,

I am attempting to see if it is possible to reach some concrete conclusions regarding the nature of spacetime.  Therefore, I have started a new title but also included my last post for reference.  Below I make 3 statements about the nature of spacetime to stimulate debate. In the past I have only been able to get vague expressions of disagreement without any scientific clash.  For example, Mark has said, “You have taken a dogma on board (about the total energy in the universe), and from there you claim to derive a lot. In my view, the dogma is already one assumption too many and is in contradiction with observation…”  Albrecht has said, “When we talk about the basic units in physics (particularly with respect to relativity), we should talk about periods and fields rather than about time and space.”  These and other comments do not contain debatable reasons why my concept of spacetime is provably wrong.  Therefore to stimulate a debate. I claim:

1)     Spacetime is a very stiff elastic medium capable of propagating gravitational waves.

2)     The impedance of spacetime experienced by gravitational waves is Zs = c3/G.  If we compare this impedance to the acoustic impedance of a cubic meter of tungsten, then spacetime has impedance about 1025 times greater impedance than the acoustic impedance of tungsten.  Therefore, spacetime meets the definition of being “stuff”.   

3)     To achieve this elastic impedance property, spacetime needs to contain a type of energy density that interacts with gravitational waves.  If we compare a gravitational wave equation to an acoustic wave equation, the implied energy density of spacetime is given by the equation  Us = k ω2c2/G = k Fp/λ2 where ω is the angular frequency of a gravitational wave, λ is the reduced wavelength of a gravitational wave and Fp is Planck force. There is a maximum possible frequency obtainable from quantum mechanics, but that is temporarily beyond the bounds of discussion.

I obviously am pushing the point that spacetime is a physical medium with a type of energy density that differs from fermions and bosons.  The reason for pushing this point is that the general consensus of the group is that electromagnetism is the fundamental building block of electrons.  I am claiming that the reason that electron-positron pairs can be converted to photons is because both are built from a common building block which is energetic 4 dimensional spacetime.  I claim that all aspects of electromagnetism can be explained by quantifiable distortions of spacetime.  However, that discussion will have to wait for another day.  Are there any takers willing to dispute one or more of the above 3 points?  

My previous post is included below since it covers some additional information on the same subjects.

John M.

Hello All,

It has been a long time since I have posted anything. I have been working on other projects, but I also concluded that many of the participants in the discussion group are in love with their own model.  That is fine and I must admit that I have similar feelings. However, I believe that I am able to accept and modify my thoughts if someone can prove a logical flaw in my model.  The dissertation by John Williamson below has given me hope that perhaps the discussion has progressed to the point that I can challenge the group to get down to the real fundamentals of physics and build their  models on space and time rather than starting with photons, charge and electric fields.  My contention is that it is possible to understand photons, charge and electric fields as quantifiable distortions of spacetime.  If I am right and these three can be completely explained using spacetime, then any theory that does not start with spacetime is like building castles in the air – there is no fundamental foundation and they are doomed to failure. If I am wrong, then it should be possible to point out the logical flaw in my model.  If you say that you do not agree without offering concrete logical reasons, then this is just an opinion not based on reason.  

Now that I have your attention, I will present a few key points which I challenge anyone to refute. These points are explained in more detail in the two attached papers.  If I really do get into a serious discussion, I will reference particular parts of my book for further explanation and support.  These two papers have received a lot of attention recently.  On ResearchGate the Aether paper has been downloaded about 70 times in about 6 weeks.  In 2015 the “Foundation” paper has been downloaded about 140 times on ResearchGate and about 150 times from my website.  Here are the key points: 

1)     Spacetime is not an empty void.  As John Archibald Wheeler said, “Empty space is not empty.” Spacetime has quantifiable constants of: c, ħ, G and εo. However, these constants do not give insights into the fundamental properties of spacetime.  One constant of spacetime that does give an insight into the properties of spacetime comes from the gravitational wave research. It has long been known that spacetime is an elastic medium capable of transmitting gravitational waves. In 1991, D. G. Blair was the first to determine that gravitational wave equations imply that spacetime has an identifiable impedance which is:  Zs = c3/G = 4x1035 kg/s.  The most recent conformation of this was in the 2012 book Advanced Gravitational Wave Detectors published by Cambridge University Press.  Five coauthors including Blair discuss the implications of spacetime having such a large impedance in chapter 3 of this book.  To help the reader understand the difference between the impedance of spacetime and what we think of as high impedance of physical materials such as tungsten and osmium, they say, “The highest acoustic impedance in a detector (∿1010 kg/s) is still about 25 orders of magnitude below the impedance of spacetime ∿ 1035 kg/s.” They also emphasize that the reason it is so hard to detect gravitational waves is that spacetime is an incredibly stiff medium for gravitational wave propagation. My explanation is that spacetime is so stiff because the gravitational waves are interacting with the large energy density of spacetime. I show that the impedance of spacetime enters into all wave equations in the wave-based model of the universe.

2)     The energy density of spacetime can also be obtained from gravitational wave equations.  As explained in my “Aether” paper, the energy density encountered by gravitational waves is frequency dependent because of a mismatch which scales with frequency. The equation is: Ui = k ω2c2/G = k (ω2/ω2p)Up where Ui is “interactive energy density”. which is the energy density experienced by a gravitational wave at angular frequency ω. Also, Up is Planck energy density ≈ 10113 J/m3, ωp is Planck angular frequency ≈ 2x1043 s-1.  In this short note it is not possible to fully explain this but the point is that general relativity confirms that spacetime has the energy density required by zero point energy and field theory.  The energy density of the vacuum is Planck energy density, about 10113 J/m3.  The details are in the papers.

3)     A new constant of nature is proposed which converts the unit of coulomb (all electrical properties) into a distortion of spacetime with units of meter.  This conversion of coulomb into length sounds strange but it is not ruler length.  Instead, it is an asymmetric distortion of spacetime which exhibits a different distance proceeding from + to – compared to proceeding in the opposite direction.  The round trip distance is unchanged. The distortion of spacetime produced by a photon is also given.  Experiments are considered but the effects are too small to be measurable with current technology.  However, some surprising predictions are made which can be checked theoretically.  Spacetime has physical limits which should affect the maximum intensity of light that spacetime can transmit.  A calculation shows that this limiting condition corresponds to the intensity which would make a black hole.  Therefore the prediction based on the energy density of spacetime is correct.  If an actual experiment could be made, the maximum possible intensity would make a black hole and no further radiation would be transmitted through this volume.  

The impedance of spacetime has only been mentioned in the first point.  However, the impedance of spacetime enters into all the calculations. When I hear the group discussing spacetime, photons, electrons and forces without mentioning wave amplitudes, frequencies, energy densities and the impedance of spacetime, etc., I think of castles in the sky which lack a foundation.  If you disagree, then prove me wrong.  

John M.    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151010/d964347b/attachment.htm>