[General] research papers

Sun Sep 13 17:54:10 PDT 2015

Hello David and Albrecht,

It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the term “energy”.   Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are.  My answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single “spacetime field” which is the basis of all particles, fields and forces. 

David, you asked about the words quantum, quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word “quantizing” in either the email or the attachment to my last post.  However, the paper Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether submitted to SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the word “quantization”. This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available at my website:  http://onlyspacetime.com/

Albrecht:  I can combine my answer to you with the clarification for David of the word “quantify” and its derivatives.  I claim that my model of the universe “quantifies” particles and fields.  I will start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models which do not “quantify” particles and fields.  There have been numerous particle models from this group and others which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass.  Most of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two balls “charges of the strong force”.  Both photons and charges of strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or the electromagnetic force.  What exactly are these? How much energy and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other more basic component? 

I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate the properties of an electron from the answers.  So far both models lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the particle’s Compton frequency.  I am not demanding anything more than I have already done.  For example, I cannot calculate the electron’s Compton frequency or the fine structure constant.  However, once I install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron.  Installing a muon’s Compton frequency generates a muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie waves.  I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a photon.  I am able to test these models and show that they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field. 

My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of spacetime.  The spacetime model has a specific impedance which describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified.  This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The particle models are then defined as ½ ħ units of quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime field.  This model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc.  Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of spacetime.  It is possible to calculate the effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge e, it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant.  

The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear.  When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as separate waves, the characteristics of the particle’s gravitational field are obtained (correct:  curvature, effect on the rate of time, force and energy density).

In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10120 difference between the observable energy density of the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe.  This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c3/G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for you to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime being a single field with this non-observable energy density.  In fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere.  It forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the “background noise” of the universe.  For this reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect differences in energy.  The constants c, G, ħ and εo testify that spacetime is not an empty void.  

If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed limit of c? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75 c relative to the earth.  The earth bound observer sees them separating at 1.5 c but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away at only 0.96 c.  How is this possible if spacetime is an empty void.  My model of the universe answers this because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations which affects ruler length and clocks.  None of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single component.  The universe is only spacetime.    

John M.

From: Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de] 
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
To: John Macken <john at macken.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] research papers

Hello John,

great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have presented. Thank you.

There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is.

In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results.

To  your questions in detail:
The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts.

The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the Schrödinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie. 

With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without further assumptions.

This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail.

The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry. 

So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of further questions.

Best regards
Albrecht

Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:

Hello Albrecht and All,

I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field.  It has been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my thesis.  Therefore I have written the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my model.  

Albrecht:  I appreciate your email.  We agree on several points which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the explanation of gravity.  The key points of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the group.  Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an explanation.  You substitute a fundamental particle such as an electron with two “basic particles”.  Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem?  What is your basic particles made of?  What is the physics behind the force of attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)?  Can you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model?  

These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum).  This is no different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists.  

Albrecht, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to take a firmer stand.  You just happen to be the first person that I contrast to my model.  I am actually happy to discuss the scientific details in a less confrontational way.  I just wanted to make an initial point.

John M. 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Subject: Re: [General] research papers

Dear John Macken,

I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions".

We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to explain inertia.  I give you as a reference: 

>Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,

which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.)

As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size of a particle.  It also explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength. 

You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites:

www.ag-physics.org/rmass <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> 
www.ag-physics.org/electron <http://www.ag-physics.org/electron>  .

You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years.

If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy about any discussion.

With best regards
Albrecht Giese

Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken:

Martin,

I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your article “Light Is Heavy” to include the mathematical proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with equal energy.  Accelerating a reflecting box causes different photon pressure which results in a net inertial force.  I already reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding the article would be even better.  An expanded article would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to confined light.  Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions.  I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions.  Any particle model that includes either a confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same principles as confined light in a reflecting box.

John M. 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] research papers

Dear all,

My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications

In particular you will find the most recent work:

*	On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces
*	Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields

Very best regards,

Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark

Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven

High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)

Prof. Holstlaan 4

5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 40 2747548

  _____  

The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150913/2813c928/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150913/2813c928/attachment.jpeg>