<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;" class="">John,</span></div><div class=""><font face="Times New Roman, serif" size="3" class=""><span style="line-height: 16.799999237060547px;" class=""> Can you explain the apparent discrepancy between your account of the era of CMB and that of the standard view: You state:</span></font></div><div class=""><font face="Times New Roman, serif" size="3" class=""><span style="line-height: 16.799999237060547px;" class=""><br class=""></span></font></div><div class=""><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;" class="">The universe has gone through 3 phases, but now I am most interested in the first epoch known as the radiation dominated epoch. It lasted from the Big Bang to about 70,000 years after the Big Bang. In this epoch most of the energy in the universe was in the form of the energy in the CMB photons. As we extrapolate back towards the Big Bang (without inflation) we get to a time when all the energy was in the form of photons before the first particles were formed out of these photons. </span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">from “ Wikipedia:</span><span style="font-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 1.8em; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> "Cosmic microwave background"</span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">After 10</span><sup style="line-height: 1; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;" class="">−6</sup><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> seconds, the early universe was made up of a hot, interacting </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)" title="Plasma (physics)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">plasma</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon" title="Photon" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">photons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron" title="Electron" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">electrons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon" title="Baryon" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">baryons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">. As the universe </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space" title="Metric expansion of space" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">expanded</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process" title="Adiabatic process" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">adiabatic</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> cooling caused the energy density of the plasma to decrease until it became favorable for </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron" title="Electron" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">electrons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> to combine with </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton" title="Proton" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">protons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, forming </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen" title="Hydrogen" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">hydrogen</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> atoms. This </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)" title="Recombination (cosmology)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">recombination</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old.</span><sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#cite_note-15" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">[15]</a></sup><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_streaming" title="Free streaming" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">freely</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> through space, resulting in the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_(cosmology)" title="Decoupling (cosmology)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">decoupling</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> of matter and radiation.</span><sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">[16]</a></sup></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><font color="#252525" face="sans-serif" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">and from “ Wikipedia: </span></font></span><span style="font-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 1.8em; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Chronology of the universe</span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">The photons present at the time of decoupling are the same photons that we see in the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background" title="Cosmic microwave background" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">cosmic microwave background</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> (CMB) radiation, after being greatly cooled by the expansion of the universe.</span></div><div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 9, 2015, at 11:05 AM, John Macken <<a href="mailto:john@macken.com" class="">john@macken.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Hi Chip and Everyone,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">You asked about why I claim that the dipole waves that form energetic spacetime have no angular momentum. I have several reasons that are explained in various parts of the book, but I will give three of them here.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">First, the photons that are part of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are continuously being redshifted. They are losing energy but retaining 100% of their angular momentum. In my model, the lost energy has not disappeared from the universe. It has been converted to energy of the dipole waves that make up the energetic spacetime field. The energy lost from the CMB photons transferred no angular momentum to the spacetime field since 100% of the angular momentum remained with the surviving redshifted photon. Therefore, this is an example of the energy of the spacetime field increasing but no angular momentum being added. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The second, mush longer reason is explained in chapters 13 and 14 of my book. These chapters are devoted to the cosmological implications of the assumption that the universe is only spacetime. These chapters complete a lot of loose ends from previous chapters and the question about angular momentum is one of them. If the universe is only spacetime today, it must have always been only spacetime, even at the beginning of the Big Bang. Therefore, what is the model of the Big Bang if the only building block is 4 dimensional spacetime? Also, the explanation is forbidden to say things like “the laws of physics break down.” This is the fallback position when physicists cannot explain something. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Therefore, the starting condition for the Big Bang is a form of spacetime that I call “Planck spacetime” rather than a singularity where the laws of physics “break down”. The properties of Planck spacetime can be obtained by extrapolating backwards from today using known laws of physics (no “inflation” where the laws of physics break down). Imagine that we were to go backwards in time. We would see the CMB photons being blue shifted to the energy that they had in earlier times. Energy would be extracted from the dipole waves that form the spacetime field and added to the CMB photons. Even though today most of the observable energy in the universe is in observable fermions, the vast majority of the “quantized angular momentum” is in the CMB photons and in dark matter. For this explanation we will ignore dark matter. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The universe has gone through 3 phases, but now I am most interested in the first epoch known as the radiation dominated epoch. It lasted from the Big Bang to about 70,000 years after the Big Bang. In this epoch most of the energy in the universe was in the form of the energy in the CMB photons. As we extrapolate back towards the Big Bang (without inflation) we get to a time when all the energy was in the form of photons before the first particles were formed out of these photons. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 8pt; line-height: 11.199999809265137px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class="">Obviously, the energy in these photons increases until we reach the limit of what spacetime can support. This limit is 100% of the photons having Planck energy (about 2x10<sup class="">9</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>J) and each photon occupying a volume equal to Planck length cubed. The temperature of this condition exactly equals Planck temperature<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">∿</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>10<sup class="">32</sup>° K. This energy density is 10<sup class="">113</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>J/m<sup class="">3</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>which is exactly the same energy density as the spacetime field has today. How can this be possible? The answer is that in Planck spacetime 100% of the energy of the universe possessed angular momentum while today only about 1 part in 10<sup class="">120</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>possesses quantized angular momentum. We can only interact with energy that possesses quantized angular momentum. Therefore we think that the energy density of the universe has vastly decreased from the Big Bang to today. The universe thinks that there has been no change in the energy density. The energy has only changed from being “observable” (possessing quantized angular momentum) to being not observable by us.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class="">This all sounds good, but is there any proof that this is what has happened<span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class="">? Actually there is some strong indications. I have several different ways of calculating the expansion of the universe from Planck spacetime (Big Bang) to today. All of these calculations give about the same answer which is an expansion of about 2.6x10<sup class="">31</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>times in each of the 3 spatial dimensions. This gives a volume expansion of about 10<sup class="">94</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>times. (I have skipped all the details about how expansion happens – that is in the book). I then make the assumption that there has been on average no new quantized angular momentum added to the universe since the Big Bang. Initially this seems like a wrong assumption. It is possible to see individual cases where colliding particles create a great number of new particles which temporarily increase the number of particles with quantized angular momentum. However, my analysis indicates that there are offsetting effects which tend to keep the total in the universe constant. However, the primary consideration is that CMB photons possess about one million times more quantized angular momentum than fermions, so what happens to the fermion count is relatively unimportant.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class="">Therefore, with this assumption, it is possible to calculate the density of quantized angular momentum units that should be in the universe today extrapolating from the density in Planck spacetime. The number should be about 10<sup class="">94</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>times lower density today than the number in Planck spacetime because of the 10<sup class="">94</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>volume increase. A calculation shows that ignoring the quantized angular momentum in dark matter, the density with this crude calculation is off by only a factor of 6 out of 10<sup class="">94</sup>. Furthermore, if the energy of dark matter particles is about 0.3 eV, then this would make up the factor of 6 and the number would be exactly correct. We know that 0.3 eV is the approximate energy of neutrinos. I propose a way for neutrinos to be cooled to a temperature of about 0.01° K which would give them all the properties required to explain dark matter, but that is a different subject.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class="">The point of this long discussion about cosmology is that the spacetime field cannot possess quantized angular momentum because it would have to be present since the beginning of the Big Bang. Extrapolating backwards from today, we have accounted for all the angular momentum without requiring the spacetime field to possess vast amounts of quantized angular momentum.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class="">Also, a third reason why the dipole waves that form the spacetime field cannot have quantized angular momentum is as follows. The entire explanation of fundamental particles is that they are merely units of quantized angular momentum which organize the energy in the dipole waves in spacetime into observable units. For example, this is key to explaining why electrons appear to be point particles. If the spacetime field itself contained quantized angular momentum, then the entire explanation of fundamental particles would disappear. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class="">There is another explanation of why superfluids do not have angular momentum in the bulk material, but I have probably already said too much. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 13.5pt;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);" class="">John M. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: blue;" class=""> </span></p><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: normal;" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Chip Akins<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Saturday, May 09, 2015 6:21 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Electron's Radius<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><o:p class=""> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Hi John M<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">After some work and thought it occurs to me that what I was hoping for while reading your work, was to find the specific conditions of spacetime resonance which describe fermions. Of course I was also looking for alpha, and a better description of photons, decay rates, and an underlying mechanism causing spin.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">It seems that a workable model of spacetime must be able to provide such fundamental basis. I know there is still much work to do, but thought you would like to know what some of us will be looking for.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Chip<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></p><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: normal;" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: rgb(149, 79, 114); text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>John Macken<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 08, 2015 3:00 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[General] Electron's Radius<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><o:p class=""> </o:p></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Hi Chip and Everyone,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Chip, you asked a simple question about the electron’s radius, but it is one that I have avoided until now because my answer conflicts with almost all the other members of the group. To explain my answer I have to start at first principles and work forward. Everything that I have done starts with the assumption that the universe is only 4 dimensional spacetime. I have found that starting with that assumption it appears that all the mysteries of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) can be conceptually understood. I am not saying that I have personally solved “all” the mysteries, but I have solved enough of them to have confidence that this is the missing assumption which is required to unite QM and GR. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">This assumption restricts a scientist to a very narrow path with very little “wiggle” room. If this was a wrong assumption, it would quickly lead to a dead-end because it does not allow wild new assumptions to be adopted. (no point particles, extra dimensions, multiverse, messenger particles etc.). However, if this is the correct assumption, the narrow path leads to amazing answers which are all interconnected and can be quantitatively analyzed. I have had the experience of discovering that following this narrow path, I develop answers to scientific questions that I was not attempting to answer. Think of this as a “bottom up” approach to theoretical physics. It starts with a few assumptions extrapolated from the basic assumption and works forward. If the basic assumption is wrong, this would be an impossible task and it would be necessary to move on to some different starting assumptions. My experience has been that this basic assumption always gives correct answers. The few times that I have attempted to jump ahead to explain some physical effect without basing it on the physical properties of spacetime, I have usually obtained wrong answers. I then went back and worked forward from the starting assumption and then obtained reasonable answers which could be quantified. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">In order to develop a model of particles which can produce the gravitational curvature of spacetime required by GR, it is necessary to incorporate waves which modulate both the rate of time and proper volume. Such waves in spacetime are forbidden by GR on the macroscopic scale covered by GR. If such waves existed on the macroscopic scale, it would be possible to violate the conservation of momentum and also it would be possible to extract virtually unlimited energy from the vacuum. However, QM allows such waves provided that the displacement of space does not exceed<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">±</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Planck length and the displacement of the rate of time does exceed<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">±</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Planck time. Gravitational waves do not modulate time and space but dipole waves in spacetime perfectly meets these requirements. Furthermore, they are the most fundamental (simplest) waveform.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Chip, you previously asked about the possibility of longitudinal waves in spacetime. Dipole waves in spacetime can be thought of as being longitudinal waves in spacetime, but this definition is a little tricky since they are modulating volume so they have both longitudinal and transverse qualities. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Now we can move on to the model of an electron. I will start with a question for proponents that argue that the radius must be ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>because that is the radius that gives ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ħ</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>angular momentum. That model implies that all the electron’s energy is concentrated in one or two point particles which are rotating at the speed of light in a single plane in a circle with radius ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub>. Such a model has a moment of inertia like a rotating hoop which nicely gives ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ħ</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>angular momentum. However, this model uses mysterious point particles. What are they made of? What keeps the infinite energy density pressure from dissipating? What restrains the particles so that they propagate in a circle? What is charge?<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">I claim that there are only dipole waves in spacetime which occupy finite volume. There are no point particles. All the particle properties are the result of some dipole waves possessing quantized angular momentum (explained in the foundation paper). Therefore, my model of an electron is a dipole wave in spacetime with strain amplitude (strain slope) of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">A</i><sub class="">s</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>=<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">L<sub class="">p</sub></i>/<i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>≈ 4.18x10<sup class="">-23</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(dimensionless ratio). This can be mathematically represented as having a radius of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub>, but being a wave it is distributed over a volume. In the book I show that the wave properties present near the circumference fade into a rotating rate of time gradient at the center of the electron model. This rate of time gradient has similarities to a rotating gravitational field. Calculations show that this has exactly the same energy density as the rotating dipole wave near the circumference. This gives my model uniform energy density which would exhibit a moment of inertial closer to a rotating disk rather than a rotating hoop. A rotating disk has half the moment of inertia as a rotating hoop, therefore the model must have twice the radius (r =<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub>) to achieve ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ħ</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>angular momentum. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">It would be nice to end here, but there are further complicating considerations. The rotation is not in a nice stable single plane. This is at the limit of causality and the rotation has QM uncertainty. There is an expectation rotational axis, but all other rotations are possible with different probabilities except that the opposite rotation to the expectation direction has a probability of zero. This is explained in the book. This chaotic rotation lowers the angular momentum measured around the expectation axis. I explain both in the foundation article and the book that the exact energy distribution and size needs to be worked out by others, but at this stage of development, arm waving arguments result in angular momentum being ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ħ.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>While there is some flexibility in the energy distribution, the particle’s mathematical radius needs to be<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>for all my calculations.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The proponents of the double loop model must require that the rotation be in a single plane with no QM chaotic motion. If you allow for chaotic rotation (required to give probabilistic spin orientation), then this lowers the angular momentum to less than ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ħ because the chaotic rotation has probabilistic rotational orientations which invalidate the ½ ħ objective. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">My model clearly can result in net angular momentum of ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ħ</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>but I do not see much hope for the double loop model unless it adopts wave properties which then allow it to have a distributed volume with radius exceeding ½<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub>.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">My model gives an exact distortion of spacetime (curvature) at radius equal to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class=""><s class="">λ</s></i><sub class="">c</sub>. Scaling from this known effect at this radius allows me to calculate the correct curvature of spacetime at larger distances and allows me to calculate the gravitational force at large distances. The electrostatic and gravitational properties that I calculate also require that the frequency of standing waves in the surrounding volume must be at the particle’s Compton frequency. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 8pt; line-height: 11.199999809265137px;" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="" class="">I am sure that this will raise objections and questions. I welcome these.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="" class="">John M.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 15.399999618530273px;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.799999237060547px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> </span></p></div><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>