[General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 13:54:18 PST 2016


Hi John M

Thank you.

Perhaps you missed my question.  

“Have you discovered some reason to support the assumption that the individual dipole waves in your model have no angular momentum?”

I have read your papers and feel there are portions which warrant further investigation.

I don’t need a sales pitch on your ideas.  But I do have some very specific observations and then the resultant question.

I do not have a question about pixelization.  

My question is about the possible spin angular momentum of your dipole waves. 

(Because a superfluid cannot display the property of quantized vortices unless it possess spin angular momentum within its constituent nodes.)

Part of the observations listed in my email below,” …they (the dipoles) could possess angular momentum if the net angular momentum of a homogeneous region of space remains zero.  This individual angular momentum of a node would naturally be opposite the angular momentum of an adjacent node such that the total angular momentum in homogeneous space would be zero.  This scenario would still make the “energy density” of these nodes undetectable to fermions because there would be literally billions of these canceling nodes within the volume of a fermion.”

So the question follows...  “Have you discovered some reason to support the assumption that the individual dipole waves in your model have no angular momentum?”

Chip

 

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 2:53 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves

 

Hi Chip and All,

 

Before answering your specific question about pixilation, I want to answer the question about whether I have any proof that this approach is correct. The beauty of using quantifiable properties of spacetime to build a model of the universe is that the model can be tested mathematically to see if it is correct or not. The basic building block is dipole waves in spacetime with dimensionless strain amplitude of Lp/λ which is Planck length divided by lambda bar which is the reduced wavelength.  For fundamental particles such as electrons, the reduced Compton wavelength is used λc = 3.86 x 10-13 m.  Therefore the dipole wave amplitude that forms an electron is Lp/λ = 4.18 x 10-23 (dimensionless strain amplitude). This amplitude is used in numerous different calculations including the electron’s energy, its electric field, its angular momentum, its inertia, its curvature of spacetime and its gravity. These equations also use the impedance of spacetime (c3/G).  

 

If the particle is moving, it is possible to simulate the de Broglie waves that would be generated using Mathematica.  While other people are happy if they get the frequency and wavelength correct, I am dealing with wave amplitudes, frequencies and the impedance of spacetime. These additional characteristics results in predictions that there should be both electric fields and gravitational fields surrounding the particle.  The theoretical charge that comes out of these calculations is Planck charge rather than charge e. (Planck charge is about 11.7 times charge e.)  Even this is a victory because Planck charge is the most fundamental unit of charge because it has a coupling constant of 1 while charge e has a coupling constant of α, the fine structure constant.  

 

One of the most startling predictions that has come out of this approach is that the electrostatic force and gravitational force are closely related through a square. The properties of spacetime are finite, therefore nonlinearities are introduced to waves because of the boundary conditions. These nonlinearities imply that a wave should have a linear component and a nonlinear component.  The nonlinear component, to a first approximation, scales as wave amplitude squared.  This means that when the spacetime wave model is used to calculate the electrostatic and gravitational forces these two vastly different forces differ only by amplitude squared in the equations.  This is all explained in the Foundation paper.  In particular, notice that equations 15 and 16 in this paper clearly show the amplitude squared relationship between gravitational force and electrostatic force.  This relationship between forces was previously unknown and is one indication that the approach is correct.  Another success is that I am able to generate the curvature of spacetime produced by a fundamental particle (Eq. 12 in the Foundation paper).  

 

An aside comment is that Chandra’s complex tension field will never be able to generate a gravitational force or the curvature of spacetime because the CTF does not have time as a component.  Gravity is fundamentally a distortion of the rate of time.  Since my wave model modulates the rate of time, a nonlinear effect of this is the production of a non-oscillating gradient of the rate of time.  That is the gravitational effect on the rate of time that we can measure.  The oscillating rate of the time component is fundamentally unmeasurable (device independent) because it is below the uncertainty principle limit

 

Another success of my model is that it predicts that charge and an electric field are really a distortion of spacetime.  I am able to give equations and a physical description of the distortion of spacetime that we call an electric field. This distortion has units of length but this differs from ruler length. This is a polarized distortion which is a slightly different distance proceeding in the (+) direction compared to proceeding in the (–) direction.  I suggest a new constant of nature which I call my “charge conversion constant”. This constant has been tested numerous ways and it always gives the correct answer if we are testing equations. It also gives reasonable answers if we are testing fundamental constants.  For example, when the Coulomb force constant (1/4πεo) is converted to a property of spacetime using the charge conversion constant, it converts to Planck force c4/G.  This is both surprising and reasonable.  

 

The most important of these conversions is when the electromagnetic impedance of free space Zo = 1/cεo ≈ 377 ohms is converted to a property of spacetime it becomes the impedance of spacetime: Zs = c3/G. This is an amazing result which has far reaching implications.  Most important, it says that photons experience the same impedance as gravitational waves. Gravitational waves clearly propagate in the spacetime field (the sea of Planck length/time waves that fill space).  This conversion says that photons are quantized waves that propagate in this same medium.  This inspired the paper titled “Energetic Spacetime: the New Aether” which was also attached to my last email. This constant also allows the analysis of electrical effects as a distortion of spacetime.  The same way that mass produces curved spacetime, charge is polarized spacetime which can be quantified and tested.    

 

There are many more tests, but I will tell you about one more.  When I was converting electromagnetic radiation to a distortion of spacetime, I realized that there should be a maximum possible intensity allowed for EM radiation.  I initially thought that this implied limit was impossible and therefore must indicate a mistake.  For example, suppose you have a laser beam focused in a vacuum.  Ignoring problems with generating new fundamental particles at extremely high electric fields, the implication was that beyond this there lies a fundamental limit set by the finite properties of the spacetime field.  The model indicated that there is such a thing as 100% modulation of the spacetime field.  This is not a single intensity because it is frequency and area dependent.  The implication is that if it was possible to increase the power of a focused laser beam, there would be an intensity which reached 100% modulation of the spacetime field and additional light would cease to be transmitted through this focus volume. 

 

When I calculated the condition that achieved this 100% modulation of the spacetime field, it exactly equals the condition which would make a black hole.  The prediction was correct! No more light would be transmitted through the focus volume when a black hole is formed.  The difference is that my prediction is based on the limits of dipole waves in spacetime to transmit the distortion corresponding to EM radiation. Everyone else uses gravitational equations to calculate the conditions which would form a black hole. I use the properties of my “spacetime field” and my models of an electric field to given insights into the underlying mechanism of black hole formation. This is one level of understanding beyond the generation of equations which describe natural laws. This also strongly supports my spacetime based model of the universe.  

 

Now I will answer your question about pixelation.  There is noninterference of dipole waves in spacetime.  Essentially the Huygens-Fresnel-Kirchhoff principle applies to dipole waves in spacetime.  In fact, this is the reason that the H-F-K principle applies to light and the reason that the path integral works in QED calculations. There is no pixelation. This model also answers the mystery of virtual particles appearing and disappearing in space.  All particles are dipole waves in spacetime which have been organized into a quantized unit because they possess ½ ħ of angular momentum. The dipole waves in spacetime can appear to be specific particles for a short time because they have the same size and strain amplitude.  However, they lack the ½ ħ unit of angular momentum and the deception is discovered in a time period equal to 1/ωc where ωc is the particle’s Compton angular frequency. 

 

John M.

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 7:15 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves

 

Hi John Macken

It is nice to read your input on these topics.

I have been considering your ideas, and have some observations and questions.

First some thoughts…

If we consider space to be made of these Planck length and Planck time dipole waves, then it seems we must also consider that these dipole waves occupy specific Planck areas in space. This is to say that they have an exclusion region where no other Planck length and Planck time wave can exist. If this is true then these dipole waves form individual nodes in space.  Following this line of reasoning can cause us to assume that they could possess angular momentum if the net angular momentum of a homogeneous region of space remains zero.  This individual angular momentum of a node would naturally be opposite the angular momentum of an adjacent node such that the total angular momentum in homogeneous space would be zero.  This scenario would still make the “energy density” of these nodes undetectable to fermions because there would be literally billions of these nodes within the volume of a fermion.

However, the organization of a superfluid to form quantized vortices requires that the nodes of the superfluid possess angular momentum.  Studies of superfluids have shown that the spin angular momentum of the superfluid itself is what causes the quantized vortices to be able to exist. So that if space is a superfluid, it seems it must possess and inherent (and normally not detectible) angular momentum in the individual nodes of space. This would then allow space to naturally support the quantized vortices which we know as fermions.

So a question:  Have you discovered some reason to support the assumption that the individual dipole waves in your model have no angular momentum?

When we take this angular momentum concept in the dipole waves a step further, it can lead to the quantization of light into photons with spin angular momentum. It can support an exact description of a transverse rotational wave in space, which would precisely fit the quantization of light energy E=hf. 

>From that point we might be able to understand the specific vortices which space can support and therefore understand why the fermions have their specific masses.

 

Warm Regards

Chip

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 5:11 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves

 

Hello Everyone, 

 

It has been some time since I have contributed to the discussion but I now have something new to say because of the historic gravitational wave announcement yesterday. It may seem as if gravitational waves are far removed from particles, forces and de Broglie waves, but in my world there is a strong connection.  There has been a lot of discussion in the group about the properties of spacetime.  However, the discussion has largely ignored all the work done on gravitational waves.  These waves propagate in the medium of spacetime and they reveal a lot of concrete information about the properties of spacetime.  

 

Until yesterday there has been a lot of doubt about whether the theoretically predicted properties of gravitational waves were correct. Serious efforts to detect gravitational waves have been unsuccessful for over more than 25.  We now know that the problem was that the detectors were not sensitive enough rather than a mistake in the concept or equations.  A few weeks after the sensitivity of LIGO was increased by a factor of 3, they detected the first gravitational wave.  The first signal detected came from two black holes merging about 1.3 billion years ago.   The detected pattern exactly matches the theoretical wave pattern predicted for the merging of two black holes.  The signal was a strain wave in spacetime which had a frequency chirp from about 30 Hz to about 250 Hz.  The following link is the first official technical paper on the subject (note the hundreds of authors)  :     https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

 

The details about the emitted and detected waves gives support to the model of the universe that I have been proposing.  I want to make several points.

1)      There is now no doubt that the impedance of spacetime is Zs = c3/G = 4 x 1035 kg/s.  This comes from gravitational wave equations.  This impedance has been known to the community of scientists working on gravitational waves for a long time (references available).  However, now all physicists must admit that spacetime has this important property.  I claim that all the quantum mechanical wave properties can be analyzed using the impedance of spacetime.    

2)      This large impedance implies that spacetime is not an empty void. This impedance is a measurable property of spacetime that is about 28 orders of magnitude larger than the impedance of steel. An empty void would have no impedance.  Also impedance implies an elastic medium which has the ability to absorb energy and return energy to a propagating wave. 

3)      The model of the vacuum that I have proposed fits perfectly with this impedance. Quantum mechanics implies that there is a Planck length uncertainty in the distance between points and a Planck time uncertainty in the time dimension.  If this is modeled as waves in spacetime which are continuously modulating distance by Planck length and modulating the rate of time by Planck time, then suddenly everything fits.  

4)      Using gravitational wave equations and the impedance of spacetime, it is possible to test the hypothesis that spacetime is really filled with these small amplitude waves.  I have shown that zero point energy exactly fits this model.

5)      All the forces are explained not by mysterious virtual photons and mysterious gravitons but by waves and distortions of this “spacetime field”. 

6)      Using quantifiable properties of spacetime and Planck length/time waves, it is possible to move from hand waving models of particles, fields and de Broglie waves to models which can be mathematically analyzed and tested.  

 

Previously I was not clear enough about whether these waves filling spacetime fit the definition of being true “energy density”.  Suppose that we assume that the definition of “observable” energy is: E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2.  All the fermions and bosons meet this definition of being observable energy.  I claim that the difference between observable energy density (fermions and bosons) and the unobservable energy density of the waves in spacetime is that observable energy possess quantized angular momentum (spin) while unobservable energy does not possess spin.   These Planck length/time waves have energy-like properties such as a frequency, wave amplitude and encounter the impedance of spacetime, but without quantized angular momentum they do not interact with fermions and bosons in a detectable way. These Planck length/time waves are the most perfect superfluid possible.  Their presence is felt because they are responsible for giving spacetime constants such as: c, G, ħ, εo and Zs. Also these small amplitude waves are responsible for uncertainty and probabilistic characteristics of quantum mechanics.

 

If you treat these waves as if they had quantized angular momentum (spin), then the maximum energy density of spacetime would be about 10113 J/m3.  However, without angular momentum to make them quantized, the vacuum appears to be an empty void which possesses mysterious physical properties. The moment that new angular momentum is introduced into spacetime, then some of the incomplete energy density of the Planck length/time waves in spacetime becomes complete and observable. For example, two spiraling black holes introduce the missing angular momentum to some of the waves in spacetime and they become observable gravitational waves. 

 

I want to use information from the above referenced gravitational wave paper to support the contention that spacetime is filled with small amplitude waves. According to this cited paper, the peak power emitted by these black holes as they were merging was 3.6 x 1049 watts.  This is a tremendous power which approaches Planck power.  It is possible to drill deeper and analyze the forces involved in the emission of this power.  Energy is force times distance.  Power (P) is force (F) divided by speed (v).  We know the power emitted (3.6 x 1049 watts) and the paper gives the maximum speed as about ½ the speed of light. Therefore the implied force retarding these two merging black holes is about: 

 

F = P/v = 3.6 x 1049 w/1.5 x 108 m/s = 2.4 x 1040 N.  

 

Another calculation can be made of the energy density of gravitational waves leaving the surface of the black holes at the speed of light. This calculation gives the emitted energy density propagating through the spacetime near the Schwarzschild radius as roughly 2 x 1029 J/m3. This is more than 108 times greater than the E = mc2 energy density of osmium.  

 

An interpretation of Einstein’s field equation is that there is a maximum possible force which is: (1/8π)c4/G =  4.8 x 1042 N.  Therefore the retarding force on the merging black holes is about 2 orders of magnitude less than the maximum possible force.  The conservation of momentum says that every force requires an equal and opposite reaction.  What is the opposite reaction in this case? It is easy to say that momentum is being transferred to the emitted gravitational waves, but then the question becomes: What is physically happening in spacetime that allows space to carry away this large a force and power?  If spacetime is visualized as an empty void, then the only explanation is that the force is being transferred to gravitons.  The more widely accepted explanation of gravity is that gravity is a geometrical effect and not a true force.   However this explanation is inadequate because geometry cannot extract a power of 1049 watts and a force of 1048 N. Even claiming that gravitons exist and carry away the power is a problem. The paper is also able to place a limit on the Compton wavelength of gravitons (if they exist). The finding is that a graviton must have a Compton wavelength greater than 1016 m which is a wavelength greater than 1 light year.  This obviously seems incompatible with the emission time and frequency of the gravitational waves.      

  

If spacetime is filled with Planck length/time waves which have an incomplete energy density of about 10113 J/m3, then it is easy to see where the power and offsetting force comes from.  The gravitational waves are distorting the tremendous incomplete energy density of the spacetime field and making it complete by adding angular momentum. This addition then completes the requirements for the vacuum fluctuations to become observable energy density which can transfer momentum and remove energy. 

 

What does all of this have to do with particles, forces and de Broglie waves? Actually I claim that all wave activity in quantum mechanics ultimately is connected to the impedance of spacetime and the Planck length/time waves that fill spacetime.  I will be writing a technical paper which explains this in more detail and uses gravitational waves as numerical examples.  However, it is possible to find the answers if you combine what has been said in this post with the information in two attached papers.  I suggest reading the “foundation” paper first if you are interested.   

 

 

John M.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160213/79ece778/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list