[General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Sun May 12 05:57:13 PDT 2019

Hi John

I have a few questions regarding your models.

It seems you have used acoustic wave formulae for you computations? Acoustic waves are pressure (longitudinal) waves and not the transverse waves of Maxwell’s equations. How do you reconcile this, and arrive at the Maxwellian equivalent functions?

You mention Bragg reflection as the underlying mechanism which is to provide the perfect 100% wave reflection (confinement) of a particle, to produce the supposedly spherical inward and outward wave functions. How could we possibly logically assume such a mechanism will provide the total lossless reflection required? And if such a lossless mechanism exists then how does any effect extend beyond such a barrier?

There are several other issues which seem to remain inexplicable, but for now I will refrain from raising those questions, until the above can be answered.

Warm regards

Chip Akins

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 6:10 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Richard,

You ask whether a neutron or a Buckyball has an internal fundamental frequency equal to the calculated Compton frequency for the entire mass. My answer is that for a hadron such as a neutron or a molecule to be stabilized by the spacetime field, the unit has to achieve a resonance with the spacetime field which opposes the internal pressure implied by the energy density. For example, a proton has energy of about 1.5 x 10-10 J and a radius of about 0.87 x10-15 m (3.2 x 10-30 m2). This is energy density of about 1035 J/m3 which converts to internal pressure of about 1035 N/m2. Therefore, the internal structure can have multiple frequencies which add up to the Compton frequency of the composite (2 x 1023 Hz). The stabilization comes when the spacetime field is capable of generating standing waves at this frequency with the proper phase to prevent energy loss and exert the required pressure. Therefore, the individual components can exist in the proton, but they interact as a unit to achieve a single frequency externally which generate the particle’s de Broglie waves.

There is another important point about the frequency of an electron. There is no doubt that to generate a model of the electron’s de Broglie waves, the electron must create spherical standing waves with frequency equal to the electron’s Compton frequency. I can offer three reasons which support this statement.

1)      In de Broglie’s 1924 thesis which predicted that electrons should exhibit wave properties, he assumed the electron would generate waves with the electron’s Compton frequency. For example, he assumed the equation   hνo = moc2. This is Eq 1.1.5 on page 8 of his thesis available at:  http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdfo  The frequency νo is the electron’s Compton frequency (not twice the Compton frequency). He generated the correct wave characteristics from this assumption.  This was experimentally proven correct several years later and he received the Nobel prize for this work.

2)      Edwin Schrodinger also assumed the electron generates waves with the electron’s Compton frequency in his paper The Compton Effect. This paper was previously discussed in my May 10 post (attached below). Schrodinger showed this frequency assumption generates the correct Compton effect.

3)      I was previously unaware of the two previous references. Therefore, I independently proved that bidirectional standing waves with the electron’s Compton frequency generates the correct de Broglie wave characteristics (wavelength, phase velocity and group velocity).

If you maintain twice this frequency, you must be able to explain how twice the frequency generates the electron’s de Broglie waves.

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 Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 8:56 PM
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

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 <mailto: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> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 < <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> 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= <mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> 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= <mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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' < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 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 < <mailto:john at macken.com> 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  <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> afokay at gmail.com
<a href=" <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> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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  <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> afokay at gmail.com
<a href=" <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> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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  <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> afokay at gmail.com
<a href=" <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> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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 richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20190512/d55ea46f/attachment.html>