[General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Thu May 9 13:26:42 PDT 2019

Hello All,

I am unable to quantify the similarities between my proposed spacetime field and Chandra’s CTF because the last time I looked the CTF did not have quantifiable properties. My model is starts with quantifying the properties of the quantum vacuum. For example, I specify two different ways of mathematically stating the impedance of spacetime (Zs = c3/G or Zd = cω2/G). Equation (10) of my paper also specifies the “flux energy density” as Uω = kc2ω2/G.   Later I indicate this energy density converts to an implied pressure. When I look up the definition of “tension” in the CTF name, I see a less common meaning is pressure. Perhaps the CTF and the spacetime field are the same.

I also specify the wave amplitude and frequency required to build an electron. This combination of these properties permits me to calculate the energy of my electron model. The answer is the electron’s energy is 8.2 x 10-14 J times an unknown numerical constant (k) near 1 (section 6.1)

Once I define the physical properties of my “universal field”, everything else is just discovery of the implications of this starting assumption. For example, I was amazed to find this model predicts that everything in the universe involves a Planck length distortion of the spacetime field. All fermions, including electrons, are quantized waves with Planck length amplitude. Even an electron’s electric field and its gravitational field involve Planck length. All photons also have the same amplitude of Planck length. This is the reason that a photon’s energy equation (E = ħω) does not require a variable amplitude term.

I also found it amazing when I discovered the model generated gravitational curvature and gravitational force by merely assuming that the spacetime field was a nonlinear medium. When I calculated the nonlinear components of the waves required to generate an electron, I obtained the electron’s gravitational properties as given in Eq. (19, 20, 25 and 27). 

Another amazing discovery was that the model generated answers about electrical charge, electrostatic force and electric fields. Everyone uses the term “charged particle” as if it is a fundamental property of nature, beyond human understanding. However, this model is able to explain electrical charge as a conceptually understandable distortion of the spacetime field (sections 9 and 10). This understanding makes connections between electrical and gravitational effects which have not been previously recognized. 

The gold standard of a new hypothesis is whether it generates falsifiable predictions. String theory and loop quantum gravity have never been able to achieve this goal. However, this model generates numerous predictions. Some of these predictions are easily proven correct, while others are reasonable, but not conclusively proven correct.

John M.

From: General <general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 8:11 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

“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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=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%7Ccb18765888e2469b647608d6d44bd408%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636929819495667202&sdata=xTzrwM%2FSL4wtv4H7OQe%2FtfirTYrl7xVAm%2F3%2Fubip4Us%3D&reserved=0> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20190509/936ec86d/attachment.html>