<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><BASE
href="x-msg://2127/">
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:black;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=black vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>John M:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I too have been busy of late, but this caught my eye: </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">and a single loop to generate the
gravitational curvature of spacetime</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT face=Calibri>I recommend you look into
electromagnetic geometry and especially work by Percy Hammond such as <A
href="http://www.compumag.org/jsite/images/stories/newsletter/ICS-99-06-2-Hammond.pdf">The
Role of the Potentials in Electromagnetism</A>. In a nutshell, the salient point
appears to be this: <EM>gravity is inhomogeneous space which is synonymous with
curved spacetime, whilst electromagnetism is curved space</EM>. To appreciate
this in a visceral way via an analogy, imagine you’re standing on a headland
looking out over a flat calm ocean. You see a single wave coming towards you.
After a while you notice that its path is curving to the left. This is because
of the estuary to your right, wherein there’s a density gradient from right to
left. This curved path is akin to the curved path of a photon that skims the
Sun. Now look at the surface of the sea where the wave is. <EM>It is
curved.</EM> Imagine how curved the path of another smaller wave would be if it
rode over it. Then imagine how curved its path might be if it continually rode
over itself. In a double loop. Forever. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT face=Calibri></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT face=Calibri>IMHO Wheeler got it wrong
with his geon. He should have considered a force that 10<SUP>39</SUP> times
stronger than the force of gravity. He should have called it an
<EM>electr</EM>on. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>John D</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=john@macken.com
href="mailto:john@macken.com">John Macken</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 07, 2015 6:51 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Spacetime-based Model of the
Universe</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal>Vivian,<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I know that I promised you that I would not be too disruptive
if I joined the group. You explained that the theme of the group was
"electrons as oscillating photons ..". I wanted to live within the “rules” of
the discussion, therefore when the topic for the panel discussion was announced
I wrote to Chandra saying: “<SPAN style="COLOR: #a50021">I am trying to figure
out whether your instructions concerning position papers excludes my model of an
electron or not. The announced topic for the SPIE discussion is "<B><I>Are
electrons oscillating photons or oscillations of the vacuum
itself?</I></B></SPAN>" <SPAN style="COLOR: #a50021">My position is that both
electrons and photons are oscillations of the vacuum itself.</SPAN>”
<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Chandra wrote back to all of us and said, <SPAN
style="COLOR: #a50021">“I do not mean to impose serious restrictions on the
“freedom” of creative thinking in this conference series by defining this year’s
discussion topic.”</SPAN> . He went on to encourage the introduction of new
ideas provided that they can be adequately supported. The position paper I
submitted was directed towards the stated topic: <SPAN
style="COLOR: #a50021">“Are electrons … oscillations of the vacuum
itself.” </SPAN>If the group tells me that the online discussion is
restricted to variations on the topic of electrons are oscillating, double loop,
photons with radius of: r = <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ħ<B>/</B></SPAN>2mc ≈
1.93x10<SUP>-13</SUP> m, then I will restrict my comments to only dealing with
properties of photons as applied to this model. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>This online discussion group is not set up to exchange the
serious technical information that requires equations and detailed
dissertations. That type of information can only be exchanged by referencing
technical papers or books. Therefore, my position paper did not attempt to
give experimental proof, but that proof is contained in the referenced paper and
book. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I want to address one of your points. You said that
including any mention of gravity was beyond the scope of the discussion. I
believe that gravity should very much be part of the discussion if there are
previously unrecognized properties of gravity which can be shown to support one
model of an electron and refute other models. In my technical paper I show that
it is necessary to assume a radius of <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ħ</SPAN>/mc and a single loop to
generate the gravitational curvature of spacetime and generate all the
connections between gravity and electrostatic force. I claim that points made in
the technical paper satisfy the condition of being experimentally provable
because I show that waves in spacetime and the impedance of spacetime generate
the Newtonian gravitational equation and the Coulomb law equation. However, it
is necessary to read the paper because these serious points are cannot be made
in discussion group posts. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>One last point for the group. The group is avoiding using
math symbols and probably avoiding expressing more complex ideas because some
people do not know how to insert math equations into emails composed in Outlook
. It is possible to write equations which contain exponents, subscripts,
Greek symbols, etc. if the correspondence is first composed in Microsoft Word
and then pasted into the email. The Word task bar that is available by
clicking “Home” allows superscripts (10<SUP>22</SUP>) and subscripts
(<I>Z</I><SUB>s</SUB>). For more serious equations click “insert” then on
the right side of the “Home” task bar explore the possibilities when you click
either “Symbols” or “Equations”. For example, here are some of the symbols
available: <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>“Greek and Coptic” <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>Ω</SPAN> <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>η α ℏ ω π λ ψ</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>“mathematical symbols” <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>≈ ≡ → °</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>“Letterlike symbols” <SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ℏ <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>I have read
“help” in Word and set keys to type commonly used symbols when I press “control”
and a letter. For example, on my computer “Ctrl h” gives ħ and Ctrl l
gives λ. This avoids the extra steps of “insert” then “symbol” then choosing a
symbol and then clicking “close”.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>John M.<SPAN
style="COLOR: blue"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: blue"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'> General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Vivian Robinson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:14
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Spacetime-based Model of the
Universe<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The themes of this discussion group are the "Nature of Light
and Particles .." and "electrons as oscillating photons .." or otherwise. It
arose from John W and others considering the possibility that electrons can be
explained as "double hooped electromagnetic oscillations", "rotating" or
"toroidal" photons" or similar descriptions. We should all be aware that
attempts to attribute a structure to electrons immediately takes us out of the
realm of quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle limitation. As quantum
mechanics is one of the pillars of modern physics, it sets up a "collision
course" with "standard model" physicists. Taking on the "establishment" is not
an easy task. (It is also well outside the theme of this discussion group.) But
neither is it an impossible task. In the final analysis, experimental
observation is reality and even accepted "standard models" will eventually give
way to experimental reality. Only by coming up with experimentally verified data
that is predicted by a non standard model theory can we hope to make any
progress. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The various models for the electron are said to come from
properties of a photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. This gives
individual electrons their spin of half hbar as well as the reason for E =
mc**2, E being the photon travelling in a straight line at c and m being the
same photon travelling at c in a circle of radius hbar/2mc. Of course these
depend upon the nature of the photon, which is the basis of this
discussion.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Several presentations about the nature of photons have been
forwarded. There seems to be general agreement that linear photons come from
Maxwell's equations. They have energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied
by frequency (nu). In free space they travel at the velocity of light c, having
wavelength lambda = c/nu. Their electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular
to each other and can rotate giving circularly polarised photons. Various
suggestions are made about their measured spin 1 x (hbar) property. Some suggest
spin is angular momentum and circularly polarised photons have spin 1 x hbar)
while plane polarised photons do not have angular momentum. Even here there is
disagreement. This brings the discussion back to the questions "What are
photons" and "How do you describe them?" After all it is the properties of the
photon that will determine some of the properties of electrons under this
general discussion group. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>So, getting back to the discussion topic. Does anyone want to
expand on the above description of the properties of photons? I would like to
suggest this is done by describing the physical principle first. In describing
the property, it would help to give experimental verification for the property
attributed. For example, if a photon has n oscillations giving it spatial length
of n x lambda, rather than a length of just 1 x lambda, please indicate the
experimental evidence for it and why this is interpreted as n and not some
other number. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>As mentioned earlier, if we want to be taken seriously we
need to make progress against the standard model. This group needs to suggest
experiments that can be performed and will give different results from the
standard model. Of all the ideas forwarded to date, only one experimentally
measurable prediction has been suggested to this discussion group about the
nature of the electron. That is, an electron is not a point particle, being
instead a double hooped electromagnetic oscillation, rotating photon, or
whatever. Calculations have been referenced to papers by several of us, which
suggest that its rest radius is hbar/2mc, or 1.93 x 10**-13 m. This radius
diminishes with increasing speed, being < 10**-18 m at TeV. There is some
discussion as to whether the radius diminishes according to 1/gamma or
1/(gamma)**2, but that is something that can be checked experimentally. It has
been suggested that experiments to carry this out could be performed for only a
few million dollars and would give very significant
results.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>You need to look at this discussion group from the
perspective of "standard model" physicists viewing all the correspondence. (Yes,
spying on email does happen.) Any standard model physicist would see that
Chandra has presented us with a wonderful opportunity to give our ideas, which
are not considered mainstream, an exposure to some "mainstream" physicists for
discussions on the nature of light and particles. Much of the discussion
presented so far has been made without supporting measurements. More than one
participant has chosen to introduce "pet theories" that have no direct link to
the structure of photons or electrons. What do you think standard model
physicists would think? A brief answer is that its participants can't keep to
the topics and appear more interested ideas than facts. In short, a group that
is not demonstrating any reason why it should be taken seriously. This is a
discussion on the nature of light (photons) and particles, particularly the
electron. Introducing concepts such as general relativity and gravity in
discussions of the nature of light and particles (electrons) is not helpful.
<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Gentlemen (and ladies if you have joined in), we are all
experienced scientists. We all know this topic is a general discussion on the
nature of light and electrons (other particles can be included where
appropriate). Let us stick to those topics in a serious manner. A position paper
should represent a position on the nature of light and particles. Describing a
position on anything else is wasting time unless it is used directly to support
the nature of light and electrons. As was mentioned earlier, if describing a
property of a photon, please give a reason for it to have that property,
physical reasons preferred. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>John M, you informed me you had a model of a photon that was
better than the single linear electromagnetic oscillation you read in my
original electron paper. This is what I and others want to know. The more
information about the nature of the photon that is supported by observation the
better position we will be in to determine "the nature of light and electrons".
But please, support it with experimental observation or a suggested experiment
that could verify your hypothesis. So far you have only stated you have "..
ideas (which you say) can be experimentally supported, ..". I and others look
forward to reading the experimental support for 6). This is not the right forum
to show experimental support for the other topics. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>John W and I have previously invited anyone who can make
suggestions for other possible experiments that could also be used for
determining the correctness of otherwise of their model. In order to achieve
some useful outcome from this great opportunity Chandra has made available to
us, we must remain focussed on the topic. For an alternative theory on anything
to be accepted over the current "standard model" interpretation, it must make
testable predictions. If anything useful is to come out of this great
opportunity Chandra is presenting, it will be best measured by the number of
testable predictions forwarded by this discussion group. The only way standard
model physicists will take this seriously is when our predictions match
observations that are not supported from "standard model" predictions. I would
like to ask that the discussion keep to experimentally observed (preferably with
a brief description or reference) or testable statements. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>You may take my request as my "Position Statement" for this
discussion group.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Vivian Robinson<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On 07/04/2015, at 6:09 AM, "John Macken" <<A
href="mailto:john@macken.com">john@macken.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 11.25pt">Now that Chandra has
given permission to propose new ideas which can be experimentally supported, I
feel as if I can freely state my position. The following is very
condensed position statement. A less condensed version of my ideas is
the previously referenced 17 page article which has just been published
today. The complete unabridged explanation is a 370 page book which is
currently undergoing revision, but the older revision is available at<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
href="http://onlyspacetime.com/"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif; COLOR: #954f72'>http://onlyspacetime.com/</SPAN></A><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 11.25pt"> <SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 11.25pt">Position
Statement<SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">1)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>The universe is only 4
dimensional spacetime. All particles, fields and forces are made of the
single building block that will be called “the spacetime
field”.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">2)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>The spacetime field is a sea
of small amplitude waves which modulate the distance between points by<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>±</SPAN><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Planck length (<I>L</I><SUB>p</SUB>)
and modulate the rate of time so that the difference between perfect clocks
can equal<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>±<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Planck time
(<I>T</I><SUB>p</SUB>). These “Planck amplitude” waves are primarily at Planck
frequency but these effects occur at all frequencies below Planck
frequency.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">3)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>Spacetime has impedance of
Z<SUB>s</SUB><SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>= c<SUP>3</SUP>/G
= 4.4x10<SUP>35</SUP><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>kg/s. The strain amplitude of
the small amplitude waves has dimensionless strain amplitude of: <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>A</I><SUB>s</SUB><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>=<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>L</I><SUB>p</SUB>/<I><S>λ</S></I><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>=<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>T</I><SUB>p</SUB><I><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ω</SPAN></I><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>where lambda bar (<I><S>λ</S></I>)
is<SPAN class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>λ</I>/2π. This
amplitude combined with the impedance of spacetime can be shown to generate
the characteristics of zero point energy. In particular, the energy
density is equal to Planck energy density<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>U</I><SUB>p</SUB><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>≈ 10<SUP>113</SUP><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>J/m<SUP>3</SUP>. This is the source
of vacuum energy, virtual particle pairs, quantum foam,
etc.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">4)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>All the mysteries of quantum
mechanics (QM) can be explained and conceptually understood when particles,
fields and forces are characterized as the result of these small amplitude
waves in spacetime. General relativity (GR) deals with the macroscopic
properties of the universe. However, even GR supports the QM model of
the vacuum being proposed because the energy density of the vacuum can be
calculated from the impedance of spacetime obtained from
GR.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">5)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>The Planck amplitude waves in
spacetime lack angular momentum and are a perfect superfluid. Superfluids have
the property of isolating angular momentum into quantized units of angular
momentum (rotating vortices). Fermions are just ½<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ħ</SPAN></I><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>of angular momentum causing a
quantized rotation in a small portion of the spacetime field.
<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">6)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>An electron is a Planck
amplitude wave in spacetime possessing ½<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ħ</SPAN><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>of angular momentum. The
wavelength of this wave is equal to the electron’s Compton wavelength and the
structure is a rotating spacetime dipole that is one Compton wavelength in
circumference. This wave-based model of an electron which is a “single
loop” with radius equal to the electron’s reduced Compton wavelength<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I><S>λ</S></I><SUB>c</SUB><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>=<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>ħ</SPAN></I><I>/mc</I>. This
rotating structure can be mathematically analyzed. For example, the
structure corresponds to the electron’s energy, inertia, relativistic effects,
forces and approximate angular momentum. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">7)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>The model predicts that the
spacetime field has boundary conditions (maximum amplitude and frequency)
which makes the spacetime field a nonlinear medium for waves in spacetime.
Gravity is the result of this nonlinear effect. Therefore gravitational
effects scale with wave amplitude squared (to a first approximation). This
prediction is confirmed because it generates the gravitational curvature of
spacetime produced by fundamental particles and the gravitational force
between two fundamental particles. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">8)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>If the fine structure constant
is supplied, then the model also gives the correct electrostatic force between
two electrons at arbitrary separation. Furthermore, it predicts a unification
of the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. This prediction is
verified to the extent that the Coulomb law equation and Newtonian
gravitational equation can both be generated from wave equations where the
only difference is that the electrostatic force scales with wave amplitude not
squared and the gravitational force is generated when wave amplitude is
squared. Higher order terms have been ignored, so it is possible that
the equations of general relativity can be generated with further
analysis.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">9)<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> <SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN>If all fiends are also
obtained from the QM properties of spacetime, then charge, electric fields and
photons should all be quantifiable distortions of the spacetime field. A
new constant of nature is proposed which has units of meter/coulomb.
When this constant is used, the Coulomb force constant (1/4πε<SUB>o</SUB>)
becomes Planck force<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>c</I><SUP>4</SUP>/<I>G</I>. Also,
the impedance of free space<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Z</I><SUB>o</SUB><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>≈ 377<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>Ω becomes the impedance of
spacetime<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Z</I><SUB>s</SUB><SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN>=<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>c</I><SUP>3</SUP>/<I>G</I>.
This implies that photons propagate in the medium of the spacetime field, just
like gravitational waves. The spacetime field becomes the new
aether. The particle-like properties of photons are explained by photons
possessing quantized angular momentum. Energy is not quantized; angular
momentum is the source of all quantization.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in">10)<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria Math",serif'>The Big Bang and the expansion of
the universe can be explained as a transformation of the properties of the
spacetime field. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 24pt"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in">
<P class=MsoNormal>John M.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 11.25pt"> <SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<BR>If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at<SPAN
class=apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN><A
href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica",sans-serif; COLOR: #954f72'>viv@etpsemra.com.au</SPAN></A><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica",sans-serif'><BR><a
href="</SPAN><A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica",sans-serif; COLOR: #954f72'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</SPAN></A><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at johnduffield@btconnect.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>