[General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Sat May 11 04:25:31 PDT 2019

Chandra,

Could you explain in simple terms in a few sentences what NIW is? I have
never been able to understand how it differs from the superposition
principle (i.e. linearity of the wave equation).

John,

Thanks for the details re Schrodinger. I have skimmed some of your other
work, but I am afraid I have not been able to get very far. The main issue
is that I don’t have the time to read and digest 40 pages, much less 400.
Your dilatory style prevents me from rapidly assimilating the essence of
your thought. For example, in the very beginning you spend several pages
talking about how light in a box can have inertia. For me, at least, it
would be better if you did that in two lines, drawing out the mathematical
essence.

I have a lot of respect for what you are doing, I don’t want you to stop or
change your process. However, when you get around to promulgating your
ideas, I think that for some people it would be helpful to have things
distilled down to their very essence. The words are helpful a lot of the
time, but sometimes they get in the way.

Best wishes,

Adam

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:56 PM Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello John M. and all,
>
>    Elementary particles such a neutron, and even small molecules such as
> fullerenes (Buckyballs) show double-slit wavelike interference patterns
> with a de Broglie wavelength Lambda-dB = h/p , where p is the particle’s or
> molecule's momentum. Does a resting neutron, consisting of 3 quarks and
> many gluons, actually have an internal fundamental physical frequency equal
> to the neutron’s calculated Compton frequency f=Mc^2/h where M is the mass
> of the neutron? I don’t think so.
>
>    I think that it is also not necessary for a resting electron model to
> contain the Compton frequency Fcompton=mc^2/h in order to generate the de
> Broglie wavelength Lambda-dB=h/p when moving. My quantum vortex
> zitterbewegung electron model, like the Dirac electron, has an internal
> frequency equals to the Dirac zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h which is
> twice the Compton frequency. Yet the electron model has a resting energy
> Eo=mc^2 because it is composed of a spin-1/2 half-photon originating from a
> double-helix photon model (composed of 2 spin-1/2 half-photons) that needed
> to have photon energy of at least E=2mc^2 and photon frequency
> Fzitt=2mc^2/h so that each half-photon composing this photon, during e-p
> pair production near an atomic nucleus, would have enough energy to form an
> electron or positron of rest energy mc^2 while internally keeping the
> original photon’s zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h. It may be that it is a
> particle's rest energy Eo=mc^2 (as in a resting neutron or electron), and
> not a particle’s internal Compton frequency mc^2/h, that creates the de
> Broglie wavelength of a moving particle.
>
>      Richard
>
> On May 10, 2019, at 3:55 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
>
> Adam,
>
> In your last post to me, you asked the following question: “What
> spherical standing wave models did Schrodinger work on? That is news to
> me!”  Schrodinger’s paper is discussed in my paper titled: *Energetic
> spacetime: The new aether* . My paper is available at:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280081640_Energetic_Spacetime_the_New_Aether
>
> Starting on page 10 of this paper, I talk about Schrodinger’s wave-based
> explanation of Compton scattering. I reference and quote from his paper
> titled: *The Compton effect*. He did not specifically mention *spherical* standing
> waves, but he did propose a model of the standing wave pattern which would
> be formed by the spherical wave model of an electron I am proposing. In
> words, the photons in Schrodinger’s explanation of Compton scattering are
> reflecting off the Bragg reflector which would be produced in spacetime by
> my proposed model of an electron. There are more details to this
> explanation which are in the article.
>
> I must also mention that it was very difficult for me to obtain a copy of
> Schrodinger’s original paper. I saw references to it, but I had to buy a
> book of all of Schrodinger’s papers in order to get a copy of this paper. I
> do not now have a copy of this book.
>
> It should also be noted that in order to get the correct de Broglie wave
> pattern produced by an electron, the electron must be producing waves with
> frequency equal to the electron’s Compton frequency, in a stationary frame
> of reference. De Broglie himself also postulated this Compton frequency in
> his famous thesis paper. He used this frequency to predict the wave
> characteristics which were experimentally observed several years later.
> This earned him the Nobel prize. I mention this because several of the
> electron models being discussed by the group are based on twice the
> electron’s Compton frequency. This higher frequency does not produce the
> correct de Broglie waves for an electron.
>
>
> John M.
>
>
> *From:* General <
> general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2019 4:39 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons
>
> Adam:
> I am working from the bottom up, leveraging my re-discovery of
> Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), which was experimentally demonstrated by
> Alhazen about 100 years ago and formally postulated by Huygens around 1676.
>
> NIW is built into wave equation where waves are propelled by the built-in
> tension property. Classical Superposition Principle (SP) and NIW are built
> into Maxwell’s wave equation.
>    Quantum Superposition Principle if built into Schrodinger’s “wave”
> equation. However, this equation does not propel particles unless we plug
> in a potential gradient “V”!??
>    Optical SP can be displayed only after a detector interacts with the
> superposed multiple waves and absorbs energy. NIW remains effective – no
> results without a detector! That is the context where I defined the need
> for incorporating Interaction Process mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).
>    However, for quantum SP, we have been ignoring this IPM-E and spending
> many brilliant physicist-hours trying to build quantum computers using
> quantum SP!?
> Just some food for thought.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:* General <
> general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> > *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2019 2:33 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons
>
> 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%7Cce725cd4d3ee431a28d008d6d4acbb65%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636930235698429794&sdata=iCeM%2F1nWGqxjCSNVkVQfktHKUO6vg3NKxdJOnFDYOOM%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%7Cce725cd4d3ee431a28d008d6d4acbb65%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636930235698439803&sdata=0OKE0S2556d1LWnCM%2BRf16Fu%2FEgPF6j%2FYbAJQEap4jw%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%7Cce725cd4d3ee431a28d008d6d4acbb65%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C1%7C636930235698449811&sdata=2c5wIbjKmfDO23FsdEMZu%2FnCVm5m55nm9HFgHste3Sc%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 richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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 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/20190511/3ab0f661/attachment.html>