[General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves

Andrew Meulenberg mules333 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 23:28:48 PST 2016


Dear Albrecht and Chip,

*Regarding **Fs = Fe α:  *

No one would expect or claim that the resonance of a block of wood would
have the same restoring force relations as an electron about its nuclei. So
why should the Planck constant control both atomic-electron (EM) and
nuclear forces (resonances) of an atom.

The anomalous solution to the relativistic-Schrodinger and Dirac equations
has angular momentum quantum numbers that are about hbar/100 apart. If QM
is based on h alone (which it shouldn't be, since it is wave mechanics
regardless of the source of waves), then it is no surprise that QM has
problems at the nuclear level. The physics associated with the
atomic-electron levels is different from that associated with highly
relativistic electrons at the nuclear level.

QM states that the atomic-electron ground state is the energy minimum. *It
is not*. It, like all stable levels, is one of many minima. It *is*,
however, a minimum for photonic energy transfer, since a photon requires
angular momentum of hbar to exist and deeper electron levels do not have
sufficient angular momentum with which to form a photon. The selection rule
for zero-to-zero ang mom transitions is that they are highly forbidden.
However, if there are wave forms based on a different constant (say 'α
hbar', then a new set of levels can exist within the limit of *l* = 0. It
is standard physics to combine spin and orbital ang mom. Approximations are
made for spin-dominated and orbit-dominated regimes. Why stop there? The
symmetry-breaking of relativity introduces a non-linearity that both
produces the discrete deep levels (separated with small ang mom) and
increases the effective Coulomb potential to the magnitude of nuclear
strong -force potential levels. It might even give the quark story a basis.

We will be publishing the 1st part of this story in the near future. If
anyone is interested in the deep-electron orbitals (binding energy in the
1/2 MeV range), as predicted by the relativistic QM equations, I will post
a draft of the paper, when it is complete.

This difference between resonance constants actually has an impact on the
understanding of photons and perhaps on electrons.

Andrew

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

> Hi Chip,
>
> I fully agree to your considerations and conclusions. It follows (also)
> from my model that the fine structure constant alpha shows the relation
> between the electric force and the strong force. And the consequence is as
> well that the strong force plays a much bigger role in the physical world
> than it is assumed up to now.
>
> But are you aware that this is in strict conflict with main stream
> physics? In traditional textbooks as well as at Wikipedia it is said that
> alpha means the coupling between electric charges. Also the original use
> of  the constant, introduced by Arnold Sommerfeld, was to explain fine
> structures in atomic spectra. (The origin of the name.) But recently I have
> also found a textbook with your explanations (which is also mine.)
>
> How or where did you find this? I am wondering how long it will take that
> main stream will accept this.
>
> Greetings
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 13.02.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi All
>
> An issue has become interesting regarding the fine structure constant.
>
> We observe the fine structure constant in many different ways. It is a
> prevailing constant which is uniquely and widely manifest.
>
> It is understood that the fine structure constant is simply the difference
> in strength between the EM force (Fe) and the Strong force (Fs).
>
> Fs = Fe α. And Fe = Fs/α.
>
> It seems we may have overlooked the possibility that what we call the
> nuclear strong force is present in many more circumstances than we
> previously assumed.
>
> So it seems that for every instance where we observe the fine structure α,
> *both* of these forces must be at play, or there must be a force equal to
> the strength of the strong nuclear force, which we have not previously
> recognized.
>
> Thoughts? Comments?
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <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>
> <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 =* c*3
> /*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: *E*2 = (*mc*2)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 *Z*s. 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* = *mc*2 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 10
> 49 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
> geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160214/c2e9e360/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list