[General] Importance of Spin

Hodge John jchodge at frontier.com
Thu Feb 18 08:40:51 PST 2016


Vladimir Tamari The paper below describes and experiment the reject wavemodels of light. This paper references a previos paper that describes how theFraunhoder pattern emerges without a Huygens assumption. Fields can guidephotons to form an interference pattern.    https://www.academia.edu/17116351/Diffraction_experiment_and_its_STOE_photon_simulation_program_rejects_wave_models_of_light Diffraction experiment and its STOE photonsimulation program rejects wave models of light Theinterpretation of Young's double slit experiment of diffraction andinterference remains controversial. The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE)model of single photon diffraction is a model with photons being directed byplenum forces as Newton speculated. The STOE simulation of the lightdiffraction experiments produces the Fraunhofer diffraction pattern on thescreen. An experiment used an image resulting from a single slit projected ontoa second mask. If the second mask slit is placed at the center of the image, aFraunhofer diffraction pattern is projected onto the screen. One side of a slitin the minima examined the result of varying the intensity of the illuminationacross the slit. One slit of two in the minima examined the result of only oneof the double slits being illuminated. The resultant patterns on a screen werephotographed and are on the opposite side of center from the illuminated sideof the second mask. The STOE simulation reproduced the images. The STOEexplains several quantum peculiarities with classical processes. Theseobservations do not reject the Newtonian model of diffraction and does rejectwave models. Hodge  

    On Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:49 AM, Vladimir Tamari <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 Dear all! 
Just when things became interesting and understandable for me - the exchanges between Chip and John Macken and John Duffield, and about the properties of the vacuum and the relation between gravity and light, index of refraction etc. as well as the older exchanges... I have to stop reading for two weeks to recover from an eye operation tomorrow. 
Chip's latest comments about the photon diameter indicate he still follows the photon- as particle model. But he is spot on for wanting the photon to have both forward and angular momentum. BTW here is my paper about such bow waves having both in a dipole sort of Huygens principle. The concept is developed in detail here in the second paper where it is shown how a dipole field contains a tremendous gravitational field as well near the origin when the index of refraction approaches infinity.  http://vladimirtamari.com/bowwavegeometry.html http://jp.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0303082I was hoping at least between the small group of rebels here that the photon particle concept would have been discarded thanks to Reiter's experiments. Within my BU ( Beautiful Universe) ToE dipolar nodes-in-a lattice model there is illustrated in a very 'real' way ( no space-time distortions just classical Lorentz adjustments)  how the concept of deBroglie waves arises when nodes twist into locked into matter and the surrounding nodes twist and spin accordingly,  creating the gravitational-field-cum-de-Broglie-waves, e/m waves etc. The rudimentary description is here   http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf    but with the energetic drive and knowledge of quantitative constraints of many in this group I feel the BU model can take off as it ought - if it ever would work at all. I am anxious that if any of my hard-won concepts are ever used they will be referenced. Forgive this unnecessary word, but see how I 'lost' a part of a Nobel prize when my 1983 idea, not me was awarded it! http://vladimirtamari.com/super-resolving-microscope.pdf  :)Cheers
Vladimir
_____________________vladimirtamari.com
On 15 Feb 2016, at 7:42 am, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:



#yiv0153262157 #yiv0153262157 -- _filtered #yiv0153262157 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0153262157 #yiv0153262157 p.yiv0153262157MsoNormal, #yiv0153262157 li.yiv0153262157MsoNormal, #yiv0153262157 div.yiv0153262157MsoNormal {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:105%;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0153262157 a:link, #yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0153262157 a:visited, #yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0153262157 p.yiv0153262157MsoListParagraph, #yiv0153262157 li.yiv0153262157MsoListParagraph, #yiv0153262157 div.yiv0153262157MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle18 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle19 {color:black;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle20 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle22 {color:black;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle23 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle24 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle25 {color:black;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle26 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle27 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle28 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv0153262157 span.yiv0153262157EmailStyle29 {color:black;}#yiv0153262157 .yiv0153262157MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0153262157 div.yiv0153262157WordSection1 {}#yiv0153262157 _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {} _filtered #yiv0153262157 {}#yiv0153262157 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv0153262157 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv0153262157 Hi John MackenThank you for your reply.However I think there are some problems with this approach.It seems we understand angular momentum differently. From a classical standpoint angular momentum is simply momentum at a radius of circulation.Energy which has angular momentum, when dissipated in a medium, imparts its forward and its angular momentum to whatever dissipates the energy. For a photon this results in a lower frequency, a longer wavelength, and likely a larger radius.  The velocity of spin always remains the same for a photon, so it is the radius which must vary to give the photon a fixed angular momentum of hbar. And E=hf.So when an energetic photon loses some of its momentum (energy) in space, it must loose both longitudinal and angular components of momentum, and as a result its wavelength and radius are changed to provide for an angular momentum once again of hbar.  So to assume that a photon does not lose any angular energy to space if space absorbs energy from the photon does not make sense.  The photon is spinning so it will provide a torque to anything it reacts with.Another important aspect to this is the quantized vortices (fermions) we see in space. If space is as you have speculated, a superfluid, which supports these vortices, then space nodes must have angular momentum. That angular momentum in a superfluid is what gives a superfluid the ability to form quantized vortices. In the suggested dipole wave in space are what causes space to behave as a superfluid then they must have angular momentum.Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 3:54 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: [General] Importance of Spin  Chip and All,  This post will address “quantized angular momentum” (spin).    I claim that quantized angular momentum is the missing ingredient between observable particles (fermions and bosons) and the vast “vacuum energy” of dipole waves in spacetime that forms the vacuum field.  For example, virtual electrons are waves which for a brief moment have the amplitude and distribution of an electron.  However, they lack permanence because they lack angular momentum (lack spin).    Chip argues against the idea that angular momentum is the critical ingredient that distinguishes between observable energy (fermions, bosons) and the “vacuum energy” which is not observable.  He makes the following statements in red:   “Let’s start with an energetic photon, and then let’s split the photon’s energy in two, which results in two photons. Each of the remaining photons will still have the spin ħ property. … So if space absorbs and dissipates energy from photons as they travel long distances, then space also must absorb and dissipate spin angular momentum from that energy.”  This thought experiment is impossible and the statements imply that the conservation of angular momentum is routinely violated when photons spontaneously split in space. These statements are not correct.  Angular momentum is always conserved.  One photon cannot be converted to two photons in the vacuum of space. The experiments where the energy of a photon is split into two photons always involves a nonlinear crystal which also participates in conserving angular momentum. The following link is to a Wikipedia article about paramedic down conversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion  The article has the following sentence:“A nonlinear crystal is used to split photon beams into pairs of photons that, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy and law of conservation of momentum, have combined energies and momenta equal to the energy and momentum of the original photon”.    The momentum conservation that they talk about includes conservation of angular momentum. It is easier to see the process of the conservation of angular momentum when circularly polarized light (for example, left handed rotation) is converted to right handed circular polarization using a half wave plate.  The validity of a 1930 era experiment addressing this point has been questioned, but today we can use powerful lasers and show that the photon’s angular momentum is transferred to the half wave plate when there is a reversal of the photon’s angular momentum.      The experiment producing two photons also involves a body which absorbs or supplies the angular momentum to conserve angular momentum.  It is less obvious using linearly polarized photons compared to circularly polarized photons because linearly polarized photons do not have obvious angular momentum. However, I claim that linearly polarized photons carry ħ of “orbital angular momentum”. This is where the propagation direction is not precisely perpendicular to the wavefront direction.  I can suggest an experiment to demonstrate the angular momentum of linearly polarized light if a similar experiment have not already been made. This experiment is too complex a subject to be discussed in a blog.  However, the conclusion is that angular momentum is conserved therefore, photons never split in space.  Below (in blue) is a portion of the article titled “Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether”.  It is included here because it illustrates the importance of angular momentum and gives more information about the properties of the superfluid spacetime field.  The numbers in brackets such as [2-3] are references in the New Aether paper.    STRONG QUANTIZATION  It is often said that photons possess quantized energy of E = ħω. However, we will examine the limits of this quantization.  Suppose that we make an analogy to the equivalence principle having a “strong” and a “weak” definition. Similarly, the proposal is made that there is a “strong” and “weak” definition of quantization. A strong definition of quantization would imply that only integer multiples of the fundamental unit are allowed. For example, if energy met the strong definition of quantization, then energy would only came in discrete units such as integer multiples of 1 eV. Photons would only come in discrete frequencies which would be integer multiples of the universal fundamental frequency associated with the universal unit of quantized energy. Obviously energy and frequency are not quantized according to the “strong” definition. Instead, a photon’s energy is only weakly quantized. All of a photon’s energy is transferred when it is absorbed, but a photon can possess any energy up to Planck energy. The same photon has different energy when viewed from different frames of reference.  Compare this to angular momentum which meets the definition of strong quantization. Angular momentum only comes in discrete units. All angular momentum in the universe only comes in integer multiples of ½ ħ. This is obvious with fermions and bosons, but a more revealing example can be made using a carbon monoxide molecule (CO) isolated in a vacuum. An isolated CO molecule can only possess integer multiples of ħ angular momentum. This translates into the CO molecule only being able to rotate at discrete frequencies which are integer multiples of its fundamental frequency of 115 GHz. This meets the definition of strong quantization. For another example, take a photon that is part of the cosmic microwave background.  Over the age of the universe this photon has lost most of its energy. However, the photon has kept 100% of its angular momentum. Angular momentum has strong quantization; energy has weak quantization.   It is proposed that all quantization in the universe is ultimately traceable to angular momentum being strongly quantized. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, it transfers 100% of its angular momentum to the atom. All the photon’s energy is also transferred to the atom, but that is just a byproduct of transferring its ħ unit of quantized angular momentum. The amount of energy transferred from the photon to the atom depends on the frame of reference of the atom. However, the angular momentum transferred is independent of the frame of reference.  Why is angular momentum quantized? This was explained in [1-3] but the EM paper [2] will be quoted here. “We are imagining spacetime as a sea of Planck length/time waves at all frequencies up to Planck frequency. These waves possess no angular momentum and can be thought of as being the most perfect superfluid possible. We can get an insight into this superfluid by looking at a Bose-Einstein condensate which is also a superfluid. It is an experimentally observed fact that a Bose-Einstein condensate cannot possess angular momentum. If angular momentum is introduced, the angular momentum is isolated into quantized units which are a function of ħ. The isolated angular momentum vortices in a Bose-Einstein condensate have been experimentally observed [12-14]. It is proposed that fermions are a rotating Planck length/time wave possessing ħ/2 angular momentum. These are analogous to the rotating vortices that exist in the superfluid Bose-Einstein condensate. Photons are propagating waves possessing ħ of angular momentum.  They propagate in the spacetime field which is a sea of superfluid Planck length/time waves that lack angular momentum. When a photon (a wave possessing angular momentum) propagates through the spacetime field that lacks angular momentum, the photon introduces angular momentum that produces a phase change to a portion of the spacetime field. The spacetime field quarantines angular momentum. This results in photons having quantized angular momentum and a particle-like property.”  It was previously stated that wave-particle duality is contradictory. A photon must be either predominantly a particle which acts like a wave or predominantly a wave which sometimes acts like a particle. The model of a photon being proposed is that it is always a wave that propagates in the superfluid spacetime field. The superfluid properties quarantine the photon’s angular momentum into quantized ħ units. To support this statement several important questions must be explained. These are:  1) How does the distributed wave energy collapse to a point? 2) If the spacetime field is the new aether, does it have an implied frame of reference? 3) Is there a reasonable explanation for the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering?  Some of these questions can be answered briefly and others require a longer explanation. First, how does a wave-dominated photon model transfer all its distributed angular momentum and energy to a single atom? We know that two entangled photons possess the property of responding to a perturbation faster than the speed of light. The two entangled photons form a single quantized angular momentum system. Measuring the polarization of one of the photons immediately results in the other entangled photon having the orthogonal polarization. The proposed method by which quantized waves accomplish this is discussed in the EM paper [2]. But the point is that the total quantized angular momentum of two entangled photons is preserved by super-luminal communication speed. By analogy, a single photon possessing distributed quantized angular momentum must also possess super-luminal communication within itself. To preserve its quantized angular momentum, a single photon must be able to transfer all its angular momentum by collapsing its wave structure faster than the speed of light. By extension, the distributed energy of a photon can collapse faster than the speed of light into an absorbing atom. This gives a photon its particle-like properties. The photo-electric effect is explained by the quantized wave model of a photon because the transfer of ħ of angular momentum also transfers all of a photon’s energy to a single atom or a single electron.  If a single electron receives all the photon’s energy, it can be ejected from a surface. Also the quantized wave model has no problem explaining how a photon explores all possible paths between two events as required by the path integral formulation.     From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 5:19 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves  Hi JohnRegarding your comment,” All of the angular momentum of the original photons remain, so the lost part retained no angular momentum.”This seems to be an inaccurate (meaning incomplete) statement.Let’s start with an energetic photon, and then let’s split the photon’s energy in two, which results in two photons. Each of the remaining photons will still have the spin ħ property. Removing energy from a photon changes its frequency and its dimensions. The dimensional change is the only reason we still have the same spin ħ property. The spin velocity remains constant but the effective spin radius gets larger with less energy (the frequency decreases) and we still have a spin angular momentum of ħ. The energy which is removed therefore also has spin angular momentum.So if space absorbs and dissipates energy from photons as they travel long distances, then space also must absorb and dissipate spin angular momentum from that energy.Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 5:31 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves  Chip,  I have to be brief because I am about to leave home.  In answer to your question I cite the following: The photons that make up the cosmic microwave background have lost the vast amount of their energy compared to the early universe.  Where did that energy go? All of the angular momentum of the original photons remain, so the lost part retained no angular momentum.  That “energy” went into the dipole waves that make up the spacetime field. Therefore this is one reason to believe that the dipole waves have no angular momentum.If you allow me to refer to these dipole waves as “energy”, then today only about 1 part in 10120 of the energy in the universe is “observable”.  In my model of the universe, the Big Bang started with 100% of the energy in the universe being in the form of Planck energy photons. This means that all the energy in the spacetime field was at one time observable.  All of it lacks angular momentum.  Also, all the properties of the spacetime field indicate that it is not quantized.  In the “New Aether” paper I have a section titled “Strong Quantization”.  It talks about the importance of angular momentum. I cannot explain this further – perhaps tomorrow.  John M.      From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 1:54 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves  Hi John MThank 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>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravitational Waves and de Broglie Waves  Hi John MackenIt 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 RegardsChip    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>
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.  
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


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

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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/20160218/ee8b826b/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list