[General] Chip draft paper on Space

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Jan 6 15:30:04 PST 2018


Chip;

Thanks for these references to the paper

The total non relativistic energy of an electron  E = 1/2 mv^2 where v 
is the orbital velocity in a bohr model so 2E = mv^2 w and F= mv^2 /r

So are you saying that there is a spin velocity of  'c" which then has a 
force Fc= mc^2 /r_e

the quantum rule is  spin angular momentum is mcr_e = 1/2 h/2pi  so 
solving for r_e = ( 1/2 h/2pi )/mc = ( hc/2pi )/2mc^2 = ( hc/2pi )/2E

This makes mathematical sense but physically you are saying that mass of 
an electron is spinning at the speed of light at radius_r_e   which is 
about 4 times smaller than its orbital radius

Is the charge also rotating at the same radius?

And further you are claiming that this rotating mass  is pulling space 
apart?

Or perhaps is the rotating charge wanting to repel itself outward 
pulling its associated mass along

How is the charge and mass held together? Intriguing ideas?

Wolf


Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/2/2018 1:45 PM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang
>
> Yes. Good idea to concentrate on one question at a time.
>
> 1.The derivation of C_F took me several pages of math, but in short 
> this constant is the value required.  I will compile all the 
> derivation and send it to you later if you wish.
>
> 2.When you read through the paper you will see that the r_e defined in 
> the paper /is not the classical electron radius/, but is rather the 
> radius which I refer to as the /action radius/ or the /momentum 
> radius/, and you will find it defined for the electron at rest as 
> where is the rest energy of the electron.  This yields a spin angular 
> momentum if ½ ħ. But for a stable elementary fermion, with spin ½ ħ, 
> moving or at rest, the equation appears to remain true for computing 
> the action or momentum radius.
>
> 3.The force Fc is defined using several different methods in the 
> paper, but all of the different methods yield the same result. So you 
> will find: so that for the electron at rest is, you will likely also 
> find: where p is the equivalent forward momentum component of a photon 
> with the energy of the electron. (Note: The total momentum of a photon is)
>
> All of these agree with the conventional centripetal force equation: 
>  when considered in context of the electron model discussed.
>
> 4.When the term E is used it represents the energy of a particle, and 
> in the case of a massive particle it is of course
>
> Please let me know if you have additional questions.  I appreciate 
> your questions, and they are helping me do a better job of providing 
> definitions at the correct time throughout the paper.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*Wolfgang Baer [mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 02, 2018 3:03 PM
> *To:* Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Chip draft paper on Space
>
> chip:
>
> Thank you for the answers I continue to be intrigued by the space 
> displacement concept.
>
> However I think it might be best to concentrate on one question at a 
> time. Where do these highly accurate numbers come from?
>
> 1. The force of energy of an elementary fermion is: Fc = E^2 * C_F , 
> where the constant
> C_F =  1.26521151107644E +26
>
> Where does this number come from? How do you define Fc and E , are 
> there measured values , is E = mc^2 for an electron at rest for 
> example. This is the only reference to E i found on page 3. No Fc 
> defined until page 14 there Fc is defined as 2E/re
>
> but re =~ 1.2x10^-12 / 6.2  but the classic electron radius is  
> 2.8x10^-15 , two orders of magnitude difference and in any case only 
> knwn to 10 decimal places not the 14 you use  so where do these 
> numbers come from?
>
> wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 12/31/2017 5:22 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
>     Hi Wolfgang
>
>     Thank you.  Very good questions.
>
>     Please refer to comments embedded.
>
>     Chip
>
>     *From:*Wolfgang Baer [mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com]
>     *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 11:25 PM
>     *To:* Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] Chip draft paper on Space
>
>     Comments inbedded
>
>     Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
>     Research Director
>
>     Nascent Systems Inc.
>
>     tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
>     E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
>     On 12/30/2017 5:15 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
>         Hi Wolf
>
>         Regarding the medium of space.  It consists of two components
>         which can be thought of as tiny nodes which are generally
>         collocated in free (not displaced) space.
>
>         The distance between these pairs of nodes may be Planck
>         distance.  But that is just speculation.  The nodes resist
>         being displaced due to tension (forces between nodes).
>
>     Could the two components be charge and mass densities?
>
>     No, both components are related directly to charge. The component
>     displaced determines polarity of charge.  The amount of
>     displacement determines charge density.
>
>     Mass is created by the 3D confinement of momentum. Therefore
>     momentum density determines mass in charged particles.
>
>
>
>
>         That is as far as I have gotten toward a description of space
>         itself.
>
>         Regarding waves in material media.  The major contributing
>         factor to energy in these waves is /displacement magnitude/.
>         If you have a wave with the same displacement magnitude and a
>         higher frequency then yes you have a bit more energy in that
>         wave.  But that is not the general way we see waves behave in
>         material media. Generally we see the displacement magnitude
>         change instead of the frequency. But the natural occurrences
>         we see of waves in material media are not like the waves we
>         interpret from the behavior of light.  In the behavior of
>         light we have a clear difference.  That difference is
>         illustrated most clearly by Planck action.
>
>         The situation with light is such that the energy of each
>         quantized element of light is /entirely/ dependent on
>         frequency.  Not so in material media.
>
>     So if mass and charge densities are normally in a constant ratio
>     but waves produce patterns of differences which introduces
>     tensions, if we assume the constant  is an equilibrium ratio, then
>     one could imagine an energy field produced by the waves. Could
>     charge energy displace mass?
>
>     In free space there is no charge and no mass.  Charge and mass are
>     only produced by the mechanism of displacement, and the spin of
>     displacement respectively.
>
>     An external charge can displace the mechanism which creates mass. 
>     I think that is covered in the paper.
>
>
>
>
>         But it is not just about waves.  The photoelectric effect
>         illustrates that no matter how bright the light is (how many
>         photons), no electrons are released unless the frequency is
>         above a certain threshold.  So it is about quantization. Which
>         means localization of energy in single “packets”. And the
>         energy of these single packets is then the question of interest.
>
>     The frequency behavior of light suggests some sort of resonance
>     between the absorbing structure and the oscillating field. Whether
>     one should project wave packets into light is debatable.
>
>
>     Of course. But the more we explore and consider the results of
>     experiment the more likely it seems that light is quantized.  What
>     I suggest is that the quantization is of the displacement energy
>     structure, and that the waves we sense are a side effect of that
>     quantization.  The reasons I suggest this is due to the simplicity
>     of the entire solution of matter and light.  But light is then
>     made of a dipole of spinning longitudinal displacement and the
>     wave we can sense is the momentum of those spinning longitudinal
>     displacements.
>
>         One of the early challenges that I faced was to understand how
>         to reconcile the concept of displacement with the behavior we
>         see in particles.  Using conventional displacement formula in
>         material media, as we use when studying the physics of waves
>         in these materials, I would always get the opposite results of
>         what we actually observe in the study of particles.  But our
>         physics in these studies is based on energy pushing on a
>         material media creating displacement.
>
>         But then, due to a suggestion by David Mathes, I realized that
>         energy of particles pulls on space to displace space.  Then
>         all the pieces of the puzzle began falling into place.
>
>     again could electric energy displace mass or vice versa
>
>     Yes, the force of electric charge and of magnetism can move
>     massive particles, so electric energy can “displace” mass.
>
>
>
>
>         So the scenario I have suggested is a reasonable and a
>         complete description for this sort of behavior of the “wave
>         action” we measure in these single quantized packets of light.
>
>     NO we do not measure quantized packets of light, we measure EM
>     pulses from material and infer there are descrete cannon ball like
>     packets of oscillations. We need to be open to seperating what we
>     actually measure and what we theorize  into those measurements and
>     then be open to alternative  theories
>
>     Yes, and we need to look at a means to explain /all of what we
>     measure/. For many years I believed that light was a continuous
>     wave.  So I worked to try to prove that light itself was not
>     quantized into individual packets of energy.  But eventually it
>     became clear to me that I was just wrong.
>
>
>
>
>         But not only does it address this issue regarding light and
>         the quantization of light, it addresses the issue of
>         elementary fermions as well. And these elementary fermions
>         display the charge and magnetic fields we see in nature.  When
>         we move these fermions their magnetic field is stronger just
>         as we observe in nature.
>
>     moving charge generates magnetic fields , I do not understand how
>     your theory of space displacement explains the creation of
>     magnetic fields
>
>     This issue is probably not explained as well as it should be in
>     the paper.  The spinning longitudinal displacements which create
>     charge also create the magnetic field. The magnetic field is the
>     reaction of the displacements of two particles due to the spin of
>     the displacements. A force between displaced regions of space will
>     cause both longitudinal force (electric charge) and a
>     perpendicular force (the magnetic field) upon two spinning charged
>     particles in proximity.  This is because the spinning
>     displacements which are the fields of these particles are
>     continually dynamically crossing each other due to spin. So the
>     transverse motion of the charge fields creates the forces of the
>     magnetic field between charged particles. Which means that a
>     particle which is moving through space will exhibit a larger
>     magnetic field than a particle at rest, simply because of the
>     added transverse motion of its fields.
>
>
>
>
>         What I have suggested would yield precisely what we observe. 
>         So I am having trouble finding what it is you feel is
>         missing.  Could you try to be more specific in defining what
>         is missing? I know that is sometime difficult to do, but would
>         appreciate the help.
>
>     what is missing is the more detailed theory I expect to find in
>     references. I would like to get such material if it is available.
>     You claim the realization that energy of particles pulls on space
>     makes all the pieces of the puzzle fit - how does energy pulling
>     on space make the particle smaller? Where is the math?
>
>     This is a great question. Thank you.  Actually the math is all
>     there, but it is not all consolidated in a single topic to clearly
>     illustrate the principle.  I will do just that.
>
>
>      If I imagine a particle of radius 1plank length is accelerated ,
>     gains kinetic energy does it  pull in space? If so , then I would
>     visualize space coordinate lines being pulled into the particle
>     radius and therefore as energy increases I would expect the radius
>     to be co-located with space division markers that were further
>     apart at lower energies , so the particle would appear bigger not
>     smaller relative to the space coordinates defining its size.
>     And i already mentions the question of how does energy pulling on
>     space generate a B-field
>
>     Thank you Wolfgang.  I will do a better job of explaining both of
>     these topics in the current revision of the paper.
>
>
>
>     Wolf
>
>
>         Chip
>
>         *From:*Wolfgang Baer [mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com]
>         *Sent:* Friday, December 29, 2017 8:15 PM
>         *To:* Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>         *Subject:* Re: [General] Chip draft paper on Space
>
>         Chip
>
>         I understand the frequency wave length argument although I've
>         never quite squared that with the localization in space.
>
>         but in your own words "/displacement of space would need to be
>         different than our experience with waves in a material medium." /
>
>         /so simply stating that "if space is a medium' but not one we
>         are used to from experience with waves makes me think what is
>         missing is to/
>
>         /define exactly what kind of medium space is./
>
>         /Do higher frequency water waves not carry more energy and can
>         be considered to be smaller as well, more energetic waves get
>         bigger in amplitude but so do more energetic light waves /
>
>         /some thing is missing /
>
>         /although I intuitively feel you are on to something and I
>         would like to understand it/
>
>         /happy New Year/
>
>         /Wolf/
>
>         Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
>         Research Director
>
>         Nascent Systems Inc.
>
>         tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
>         E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
>         On 12/23/2017 5:03 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
>             Hi Wolfgang
>
>             You asked several questions regarding the paper I
>             circulated earlier.
>
>             I found those remarks and questions to be very helpful.
>
>             If you don’t mind I would like to take those questions and
>             remarks one at a time and try to resolve any problems in
>             my presentation of those topics.
>
>             One of those questions was…
>
>             /THEN I RUN INTO TROUBLE /
>
>             /Where does this come from? P5: “Since more energetic
>             particles are smaller particles, and if space is a medium,
>             then the simplest explanation is that energy displaces
>             space toward the particle center, and more energy
>             therefore creates a smaller particle.”/
>
>             So I have attempted to explain this in the text below.
>
>             Please let me know if I have effectively explained this or
>             if you still find any issues with this attempt to explain
>             in more detail.
>
>             /Planck’s action indicates that more energetic particles
>             are smaller particles. A photon with more energy has a
>             shorter wavelength which means a smaller extent of action.
>             A fermion with more energy is smaller than a fermion with
>             less energy. This is demonstrated by the effective charge
>             radii of nucleons and in several other ways. /
>
>             /Since more energetic particles are smaller particles, and
>             if space is a medium, then the simplest explanation is
>             that energy displaces space toward the particle center,
>             and more energy therefore creates a smaller particle. 
>             While exploring the concept that energy causes a
>             displacement of space, and can propagate through space in
>             the form of displacements, it became clear that the nature
>             of that displacement of space would need to be different
>             than our experience with waves in a material medium.  In a
>             material medium a more energetic wave is a larger wave,
>             but in space the opposite is very strongly illustrated by
>             experiment. The only explanation found to remedy this
>             dichotomy was to understand that energy pulls on space to
>             displace space, pulling toward the particle center. This
>             action is then responsible for what we observe when we
>             note that a more energetic particle is a smaller particle. /
>
>             Chip
>
>             *From:*Wolfgang Baer [mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com]
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:37 PM
>             *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>             <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Chip
>             Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>             *Subject:* Re: [General] Chip draft paper on Space
>
>             Chip:
>
>             I read your paper there is a lot to like  3 D space, Pre
>             Einstein Relativity , Longitudinal EM waves ( i think this
>             is Near field stuff) the following quto is excellent
>
>             P4: What we are suggesting is that all of the items in the
>             numbered list above are satisfied in a three dimensional
>             Euclidian space, if we properly construct our theoretical
>             models, and that the concept is so elegant and simple that
>             we can easily begin to have the sentiment expressed by
>             Wheeler. Bell understood and tried to tell us that the
>             velocity c is not the limiting velocity for all
>             information in the universe. And what we have discovered,
>             about entanglement and many other topics, indicate that
>             Bell was right. When we refuse to look beyond our existing
>             theory, and we choose to conduct research with
>
>             the artificial mandate that c is a limiting velocity for
>             everything, we are forced to try to solve the puzzles by
>             adding extra dimensions to our universe. But when we
>             recognize the error, and find the specific importance and
>             cause of c and other velocities, then the pieces of the
>             puzzle are much more easily understood and assembled.”
>
>             and the case for an ether P5: “If space is really empty
>             then what is it that supports the wavefunctions of
>             particles themselves?”
>
>             Lorenzian P6: “The direct implications of this are, space
>             itself is of a Euclidian geometry, and that motion of
>             material objects through a fixed frame of space causes
>             these transformations to material objects.”
>
>             THEN I RUN INTO TROUBLE
>
>             Where does this come from? P5: “Since more energetic
>             particles are smaller particles, and if space is a medium,
>             then the simplest explanation is that energy displaces
>             space toward the particle center, and more energy
>             therefore creates a smaller particle.”
>
>             What in space is being displaced? P7
>
>             Where do  numbers to 14 decimal places come from?
>
>             1.The force of energy of an elementary fermion is:, Fe=
>             E^2 *C_F where the constant
>
>             C_F  = 1.26521151107644E 􀵅26
>
>              Is there a direction to the force? is it internal to the
>             fermion or extending outward with interactions. Is E here
>             the mc^2 of the fermion?
>
>             What is a ”momentum radius”
>
>             It sounds like you are attaching an infinitely extending
>             field to charges and then rotating the whole thing  , or
>             are you assuming a rotating charge which gives
>
>             forward or bckward pressure waves to the attached field.
>             Are charges points or densities?
>
>
>             Lot’s of missing definitions.
>
>             Is there a reference I am missing.
>
>             wolf
>
>             Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
>             Research Director
>
>             Nascent Systems Inc.
>
>             tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
>             E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
>             On 12/13/2017 5:41 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
>                 Hi Grahame and All
>
>                 I tried to send a copy of the paper, but it may have
>                 been rejected due to a “bounce” message from the server.
>
>                 That paper is attached here again.
>
>                 Thank you.
>
>                 Chip
>
>                 *From:*General
>                 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>                 *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
>                 *Sent:* Monday, December 11, 2017 9:48 AM
>                 *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
>                 Discussion'
>                 <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>                 <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>                 *Subject:* [General] Chip draft paper on Space
>
>                 Hi Chip & all,
>
>                 That sounds v. interesting.
>
>                 Unfortunately it appears that the copy of your draft
>                 as received here is damaged in some way: Acrobat
>                 reports an error, and if I copy file to desktop and
>                 open there it only shows one page (P. 13).
>
>                 I don't know if others have a similar problem - but
>                 I'd be most interested to read your thoughts, Chip, if
>                 you could re-send it.
>
>                 Many thanks,
>
>                 Grahame
>
>                 ----- Original Message -----
>
>                 *From:*Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>
>                 *To:*srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org> ;
>                 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>                 <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>                 *Sent:*Monday, December 11, 2017 12:49 PM
>
>                 *Subject:*Re: [General] Space
>
>                 Hi All
>
>                 I have been working on something which has proved
>                 quite interesting.
>
>                 This is an entirely different approach describing
>                 space, particle, charge, etc.
>
>                 There is an early draft paper attached.
>
>                 Please take a look and comment. Any and all comments
>                 or criticisms are very welcomed.
>
>                 Chip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
>                 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>                 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20180106/15e71134/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 631 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: image/png
Size: 317 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image017.png
Type: image/png
Size: 527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image023.png
Type: image/png
Size: 601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image025.png
Type: image/png
Size: 412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image029.png
Type: image/png
Size: 584 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image030.png
Type: image/png
Size: 584 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image031.png
Type: image/png
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180106/15e71134/attachment-0010.png>


More information about the General mailing list