[General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Thu May 9 11:32:30 PDT 2019

Chandra:

Yes, something like this is certainly true. The nature of the self-looping
and the interactions of the structures and the gradients is mostly what I
think about.

Adam

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:21 AM Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> Adam:
>
> I have conceptualized in my earlier papers, from the stand point of grand
> unification, that all the “forces” are fundamentally different kinds of
> potential gradients of the same CTF, generated (caused) by different kinds
> of localized self-looped oscillations, the exact structures of which should
> be determined by our mathematically talented colleagues.
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=
> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2019 1:55 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons
>
>
>
> John, Chandra,
>
>
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that what Chandra outlines is the right way
> to go for physics. There is of course a wave medium through which light and
> gravitational waves propagate. What exactly it is, is an open question. I
> prefer Chandra’s CTF to the zero-point energy field, because this is based
> on quantum concepts, and I feel that we should derive these concepts, not
> rely on them as foundational.
>
>
>
> I will find time to look more in depth at your book, John. I believe that
> you are on the right track with your notions of electrostatic force and
> gravity. I had the same ideas myself, as have several others. The main
> problems (how to specify exactly how this works from simple first
> principles) remains unsolved I think.
>
>
>
> What spherical standing wave models did Schrodinger work on? That is news
> to me!
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:10 AM Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
> “My work starts with a quantifiable model of zero-point energy (ZPE) in
> the quantum vacuum. This is modeled as a sea of Planck length and Planck
> time vacuum fluctuations, predominantly at Planck frequency. This is not
> arm waving – it has quantifiable impedance, flux energy density and
> elasticity. I then prove that both gravitational waves and electromagnetic
> radiation encounter this same impedance. This has the property of a
> universal field. Now *I have a concrete starting point to build
> everything in the universe*.”
>
>
>
> John M:
>
> This is great progress. Keep up the good work!
>
> What the current literature is calling “zero-point energy”, I call it
> “Complex *Tension* Field” or CTF. This is to trigger a fresh conceptual
> start. *To me, CTF holds 100% of the energy of the universe*. EM waves
> cannot travel across the entire cosmic space with the same fixed velocity
> without the presence of stationary tension field. To accommodate absence of
> “ether drag”, particles have to be localized self-looped oscillators of the
> same tension field. EM waves and particles, comprising the observable
> universe, are just different kinds of excited states of this same CTF.
> Particles and EM waves can interact with  each other and can get converted
> to each other. These excited state energy cannot be assimilated back by the
> CTF, hence the law of conservation of energy reigns supreme in our CAUSAL
> universe. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are dark alleys to me.
>
>      Generating models for localized self-looped harmonic oscillators as
> elementary particles is the right direction for Physics, as you gentlemen
> are doing. Schrodinger’s Exp[iEt/ћ] with E=hf, f being the *self-looped
> oscillation frequency of particles*, makes  Schrodinger equation so
> powerful. Interpreting Exp[iEt/ћ] as a plane wave has been a grave mistake
> of Physics. The universe cannot sustain a plane-waves; it is energetically
> divergent.
>
>
>
> Keep up the good work,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:* General <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=
> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> *On Behalf Of *John Macken
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2019 2:59 AM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comments. You have reminded me that I should look into
> previous work a little deeper. I did come across Milo Wolf’s work years
> ago. However, as I recall I concluded that de Broglie himself had pointed
> out that the counter propagating waves could create some of the
> characteristics of a particle’s de Broglie waves. Therefore, I did not see
> Milo Wolf adding too much. In fact, both Milo and Gabriel LaFreniere have
> monopole wave diagrams. These are the easiest to draw as a starting point,
> but they are wrong when you actually look at their particle characteristics
> more closely. The most obvious problem is that they do not have ½ h bar
> angular momentum and related properties.
>
>
>
> Schrodinger also attempted to generate a similar wave-based particle
> model. He eventually abandoned the idea because he was visualizing waves in
> classical space which is an empty void. Schrodinger could not offer any
> mechanism of how these waves could be stabilized.
>
>
>
> My work starts with a quantifiable model of zero-point energy (ZPE) in the
> quantum vacuum. This is modeled as a sea of Planck length and Planck time
> vacuum fluctuations, predominantly at Planck frequency. This is not arm
> waving – it has quantifiable impedance, flux energy density and elasticity.
> I then prove that both gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation
> encounter this same impedance. This has the property of a universal field.
> Now I have a concrete starting point to build everything in the universe.
>
>
>
> I will skip many intermediate steps and mention that this model of the
> quantum vacuum and particles generate both electric fields and gravity. I
> then find that this wave-based model reveals relationships between the
> gravitational force and the electrostatic force which were previously
> unrecognized. I give several predictions which are easily proven correct. I
> have other predictions, not mentioned in the article, which require
> experiments. If you are interested, I can talk about predictions (not in
> the article) in a future post.
>
>
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General <
> general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2019 11:24 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> I was surprised to see your diagrams. I thought I was the only one
> pursuing models of this kind. Well done for striking so closely at the door
> of truth!
>
>
>
> Your paper would probably benefit from mention of the work of Milo Wolf,
> Gabriel LaFreniere, Geoff Haselhurst, and others who have pursued the
> spherical standing wave model of the electron. Their diagrams are basically
> identical to yours (except for the spirals).
>
>
>
> One problem that all of these authors have had is how to get the
> inward-propagating waves. You mention Bragg reflection of vortex waves
> entering resonance with the spacetime field. Do you have the details worked
> out mathematically?
>
>
>
> Also, many thanks for the appendix, which looks very useful.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:17 AM John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
>       I have been following the discussion, but I have not contributed for
> a long time. I have been working on a model of the universe based on the
> idea that the quantum vacuum is Planck length and Planck time vacuum
> fluctuations. This is a quantifiable starting assumption for a universal
> field which generates everything in the universe, including electrons. The
> attached paper draft titled *Single component model of the universe*,
> starts off by describing this basic building block. However, the second
> half of this paper tests this hypothesis by seeing if it can generate a
> model of an electron from the properties of the quantum vacuum.
>
>
>
>       This model addresses electron properties generally not addressed in
> this group. For example, an electron’s de Broglie wave characteristics give
> key insights into the required physical properties of an electron model.
> Since this research generates equations for the properties of the quantum
> vacuum, it is possible use these equations to test whether the model
> generates the electron’s energy, inertia, electric field and gravitational
> field. This model generates numerous falsifiable predictions. Some of these
> predictions can be easily tested. Other predictions require further
> analysis or experiments.
>
>
>
>       Besides the attached paper, there is a second attached PDF titled
> “Chapter 1 Appendix”. This is reference [19] in the paper. This reference
> is 2 pages out of a 400 page book. Therefore, it is easier to just attach
> this for this group. It contains several key calculations which form the
> basis of the electron model.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Macken
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C6c1c295e521744face6408d6d4a77b32%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636930213145018978&sdata=tdCR7no%2BK67%2FnhKu6gwXw59dzGxQgivA08lWYrIAnXk%3D&reserved=0>
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C6c1c295e521744face6408d6d4a77b32%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636930213145028987&sdata=JO3Lai7SbBwEfdWivB5pD1qOt%2F99MQQ70VMr1cCOsrM%3D&reserved=0>
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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/20190509/bc773b91/attachment.html>